Jump to content

Nixon v. United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
m Decision: Fixed broken link
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{distinguish2|[[United States v. Donut]], the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon}}
{{distinguish|text=''[[United States v. Nixon]]'', the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{SCOTUSCase
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Donut v. United States
|Litigants=Nixon v. United States
|ArgueDate=October 14
|ArgueDate=October 14
|ArgueYear=1992
|ArgueYear=1992
Line 10: Line 11:
|USPage=224
|USPage=224
|ParallelCitations=113 S. Ct. 732; 122 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 2d 1; 1993 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 834; 61 U.S.L.W. 4069; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 279; 93 Daily Journal DAR 574; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 821
|ParallelCitations=113 S. Ct. 732; 122 [[Lawyers' Edition|L. Ed.]] 2d 1; 1993 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 834; 61 U.S.L.W. 4069; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 279; 93 Daily Journal DAR 574; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 821
|Prior=744 [[Federal Supplement|F.Supp.]] 9 (D.D.C. 1990), ''aff'd'', 938 [[Federal Reporter|F.2d]] 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), ''cert. granted'', 502 [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 1090 (1992)
|Prior=744 [[Federal Supplement|F.Supp.]] 9 ([[D.D.C.]] 1990), ''aff'd'', 938 [[Federal Reporter|F.2d]] 239 ([[D.C. Cir.]] 1991), ''[[Certiorari|cert]]. granted'', {{ussc|502|1090|1992|el=no}}.
|Subsequent=None
|Subsequent=None
|Holding=The contention that Senate committees appointed to gather evidence in an impeachment trial are unconstitutional is nonjusticiable, because impeachment is a political question.
|Holding=The contention that Senate committees appointed to gather evidence in an impeachment trial are unconstitutional is [[nonjusticiable]] because impeachment is a political question.
|SCOTUS=1991-1993
|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/argument/
|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/argument/
|Majority=Rehnquist
|Majority=Rehnquist
Line 23: Line 23:
|LawsApplied=U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 3, Clause 6
|LawsApplied=U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 3, Clause 6
}}
}}
'''''Nixon v. United States''''', {{ussc|506|224|1993|el=no}},<ref>{{ussc|506|224|1993}}</ref> was a [[United States Supreme Court]] decision that determined that the question of whether the [[United States Senate|Senate]] had properly tried an [[impeachment in the United States|impeachment]] was a [[political question]] and could not be resolved in the courts.
'''''Nixon v. United States''''', 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a [[United States Supreme Court]] decision that determined that a question of whether the [[United States Senate|Senate]] had properly tried an [[impeachment in the United States|impeachment]] was [[Political question|political]] in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.<ref>{{ussc|name=Nixon v. United States|506|224|1993}}.</ref>


==Background==
==Background==


The Chief Judge for the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi]], [[Walter Nixon]], was convicted of committing [[perjury]] before a [[grand jury]] but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated. Nixon was subsequently impeached by the [[US House of Representatives]], and the matter was referred to the Senate for a vote on Nixon's removal. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon and later report to the body as a whole. The Senate then heard the report of the committee and voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon contended that this did not meet the [[US Constitution|constitutional]] requirement of [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]] for the case to be "tried by the Senate."
The Chief Judge for the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi]], [[Walter Nixon]], was convicted of committing [[perjury]] before a [[grand jury]] but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated. Nixon was subsequently impeached by the [[US House of Representatives]], and the matter was referred to the Senate for a vote on Nixon's removal. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon and later report to the body as a whole. The Senate then heard the report of the committee and voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon contended that this did not meet the [[US Constitution|constitutional]] requirement of [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]] for the case to be "tried by the Senate".


==Decision==
==Decision==
The majority opinion (the court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published) held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gave the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word "sole" it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word "try" was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.
The court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published. The majority opinion, by [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[William Rehnquist]], held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. [[Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Trial_of_impeachment|Article I, Section 3]] of the Constitution gives the [[United States Senate|Senate]] the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word ''sole'' it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word ''try'' was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.


Furthermore the [[Framers of the Constitution|Framers]] believed that representatives of the people should try impeachments, and the Court was too small to justly try impeachments. Also, the judicial branch is "[[checks and balances|checked]]" by impeachments so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
Furthermore, the [[Framers of the Constitution|Framers]] believed that representatives of the people should try impeachments, and the Court was too small to justly try impeachments. Also, the judicial branch is "[[checks and balances|checked]]" by impeachments, so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of the [[separation of powers]].


The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy and bias post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions, which the Constitution explicitly allows.
The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy and bias post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions, which the Constitution explicitly allows.


Justices White, Blackmun and Souter concurred but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing the area for review. While they found that the Senate did all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process, such as "a coin toss."
Justices [[Byron White]], [[Harry Blackmun]], and [[David Souter]] concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing the area for review. While they found that the Senate had done all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process such as "a [[coin flipping|coin toss]]."


An important feature of this case is how it diverges from ''[[Powell v. McCormack]]''. In ''Powell'', a grant of discretionary power to Congress was deemed to be [[justiciable]] because it required a mere "interpretation" of the Constitution.
An important feature of this case is how it diverges from ''[[Powell v. McCormack]]'' (1969). In ''Powell,'' a grant of discretionary power to Congress was deemed to be [[justiciable]] because it required a mere "interpretation" of the Constitution.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 51: Line 51:
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112803/nixon-v-united-states/
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112803/nixon-v-united-states/
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep506/usrep506224/usrep506224.pdf
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/argument/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_740/argument/
| openjurist =https://openjurist.org/506/us/224
| other_source1 = OpenJurist
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17675318889659087739
| other_url1 =https://openjurist.org/506/us/224
| other_source2 = Google Scholar
| other_url2 =https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17675318889659087739
}}
}}


{{USArticleIII}}

[[Category:United States Constitution Article Three case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:1993 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1993 in United States case law]]
[[Category:20th century American trials]]
[[Category:20th-century American trials]]
[[Category:United States political question doctrine case law]]
[[Category:United States political question doctrine case law]]
[[Category:Impeachment in the United States]]
[[Category:United States federal impeachment]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:Trials in Washington, D.C.]]

Latest revision as of 04:13, 9 May 2024

Nixon v. United States
Argued October 14, 1992
Decided January 13, 1993
Full case nameWalter L. Nixon, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Citations506 U.S. 224 (more)
113 S. Ct. 732; 122 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 834; 61 U.S.L.W. 4069; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 279; 93 Daily Journal DAR 574; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 821
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
Prior744 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. granted, 502 U.S. 1090 (1992).
SubsequentNone
Holding
The contention that Senate committees appointed to gather evidence in an impeachment trial are unconstitutional is nonjusticiable because impeachment is a political question.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrenceWhite (in judgment), joined by Blackmun
ConcurrenceSouter (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 3, Clause 6

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.[1]

Background

[edit]

The Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon, was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated. Nixon was subsequently impeached by the US House of Representatives, and the matter was referred to the Senate for a vote on Nixon's removal. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon and later report to the body as a whole. The Senate then heard the report of the committee and voted to remove Nixon from office. Nixon contended that this did not meet the constitutional requirement of Article I for the case to be "tried by the Senate".

Decision

[edit]

The court's decision was unanimous, but four separate opinions were published. The majority opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power to try all impeachments." Because of the word sole it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. Furthermore, because the word try was originally understood to include factfinding committees, there was a textually demonstrable commitment to give broad discretion to the Senate in impeachments.

Furthermore, the Framers believed that representatives of the people should try impeachments, and the Court was too small to justly try impeachments. Also, the judicial branch is "checked" by impeachments, so judicial involvement in impeachments might violate the doctrine of the separation of powers.

The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy and bias post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions, which the Constitution explicitly allows.

Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing the area for review. While they found that the Senate had done all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases in which the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process such as "a coin toss."

An important feature of this case is how it diverges from Powell v. McCormack (1969). In Powell, a grant of discretionary power to Congress was deemed to be justiciable because it required a mere "interpretation" of the Constitution.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
[edit]