Nixon v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is about the 1993 case on the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon. For the 1974 case on the powers of President Richard Nixon, see United States v. Nixon.

Nixon v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 14, 1992

Decided January 13, 1993

Full case name:	Walter L. Nixon, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Citations:	506 U.S. 224, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1, 61 USLW 4069
Prior history:	744 F.Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. granted, 502 U.S. 1090 (1992)
Subsequent history:	---

Holding

The case is not justiciable because the Constitution has committed decision-making on impeachments to the Senate.

Court membership

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Associate Justices Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas

Case opinions

Majority by: Rehnquist

Joined by: Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Concurrence by: Stevens

Concurrence in the judgment by: White

Joined by: Blackmun

Concurrence in the judgment by: Souter

Laws applied

U.S. Const. Art. I

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the question of whether the U.S. Senate had properly "tried" an impeachment was a political question, and could not be resolved in the Courts.

[edit] Facts

In this case, a United States federal judge named Walter Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for committing perjury before a grand jury. The Senate appointed a committee to hear the evidence against Nixon, and then report to the body as a whole. Nixon contended that this did not meet the constitutional requirement that the case be "tried by the Senate."

Justices White, Blackmun and Souter concurred, but voiced concern that the Court was foreclosing this area for review. While they found that the Senate did in fact all that was constitutionally required, they were concerned that the Court should have the power to review cases where the Senate removed an impeached officer summarily without a hearing, or through some arbitrary process, such as "a cointoss".

The majority 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, which performed its role appropriately. The Court further ruled that involving the judiciary would prevent finality without clear remedy, and interfere with post-impeachment criminal or civil prosecutions which the Constitution explicitly allows.