Can the President of the United States invoke executive privilege to shield subpoenaed evidence from being used in a criminal trial?

President Richard Nixon was subpoenaed by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski for tape recordings and documents of conversations between Nixon and his aides related to the Watergate scandal. The subpoena was issued in connection with the criminal trial of seven former Nixon administration officials. Nixon invoked executive privilege and refused to comply, arguing that the separation of powers doctrine precluded judicial review of a President's claim of privilege.

The District Court denied Nixon's motion to quash the subpoena and ordered him to deliver the materials for in camera inspection. Nixon appealed this decision, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court on an expedited basis. The central issue was whether the President's claim of executive privilege could shield him from complying with a subpoena in a criminal proceeding.

The Special Prosecutor filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court authorized the subpoena. President Nixon then sought to quash the subpoena, but the District Court denied his motion. The President appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. However, before the Court of Appeals could rule on the matter, both the Special Prosecutor and President Nixon petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment. The Supreme Court granted both petitions, citing the public importance of the issues and the need for prompt resolution.

(Burger, C.J.)

No. The President cannot claim an absolute, unqualified executive privilege to withhold evidence subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial. A qualified executive privilege exists, but it must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. The separation of powers doctrine does not preclude judicial review of a President's claim of privilege. While there is a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the fundamental demands of due process and the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege based on the public interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications cannot prevail over these essential needs of the judicial process.

In camera examination of subpoenaed materials by the trial court is necessary to ensure that Presidential confidentiality is protected to the greatest extent possible consistent with the fair administration of justice. This approach strikes the appropriate balance between the President's need for confidentiality and the courts' need for relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. The privilege is qualified, not absolute, recognizing both the importance of confidentiality in executive communications and the paramount importance of the rule of law in our constitutional system. This decision upholds the principle that no person, not even the President, is above the law or beyond the reach of the courts in a criminal proceeding. The courts have the authority and duty to determine the scope and applicability of executive privilege when it conflicts with the proper administration of criminal justice.