Is this the famous United States v. Nixon case about executive privilege?

This excerpt (417 U.S. 960) contains only the preliminary order granting certiorari before judgment. The landmark merits decision establishing limits on executive privilege is reported at 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Students should study the full merits opinion for constitutional holdings.

What did the Court decide about the grand jury finding against Nixon?

The Court unsealed only the grand jury's 19-0 probable cause finding that Nixon was a member of the conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice. The remainder of the sealed record remained confidential to protect grand jury secrecy and the ongoing prosecution.

Why does the area of law list 'Contracts'?

The metadata appears incorrect. This case involves constitutional law (separation of powers, executive privilege), criminal procedure (grand jury, subpoenas), and federal jurisdiction—not contracts. The case metadata may be erroneous or the opinion excerpt may be mislabeled.

What is certiorari before judgment?

Certiorari before judgment allows the Supreme Court to review a case before the court of appeals renders its decision. The Court exercises this authority only in exceptional circumstances involving issues of imperative public importance requiring immediate resolution, as in the Watergate matter.

Contracts · MBE-tested · Landmark

United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.; and Nixon, President of the United States v. United States

417 U.S. 960·Supreme Court of the United States·1974

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

Supreme Court grants certiorari before judgment in Watergate tapes case and unseals grand jury finding against Nixon.

Summary

The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in consolidated cases involving President Nixon's challenge to a District Court subpoena for White House tape recordings and documents in connection with the Watergate conspiracy prosecution. The Court unsealed a grand jury finding of probable cause to believe Nixon was an unindicted coconspirator but otherwise maintained confidentiality. The Court directed the parties to brief appealability of the District Court's order and the Court's jurisdiction to entertain a mandamus petition in addition to the questions presented by the parties.

Separation of PowersExecutive PrivilegeAppellate JurisdictionGrand Jury Proceedings

Parties

United States (petitioner/cross-respondent) v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States (respondent/cross-petitioner)

Procedural posture

The District Court issued a subpoena on May 20, 1974. Before judgment by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, both the Special Prosecutor and President Nixon filed petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court. A mandamus petition was also filed in the Court of Appeals and transmitted to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Opinion text is truncated and constitutes only the Court's preliminary order granting certiorari, not the merits decision. The record indicates that on June 5, 1972, a grand jury was investigating a conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice. On February 25, 1974, the grand jury voted 19-0 to find probable cause that President Richard M. Nixon was a member of that conspiracy and authorized the Special Prosecutor to identify Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator in subsequent legal proceedings. The District Court sealed portions of the record on May 13, 1974, and issued a subpoena order on May 20, 1974. Both the Special Prosecutor and the President sought review before appellate judgment was rendered.

Issue

The opinion is truncated and presents only the order granting certiorari. The Court directed briefing on: (a) whether the District Court's May 20, 1974 order is appealable; and (b) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the mandamus petition transmitted from the Court of Appeals. Material substantive issues regarding executive privilege are not reached in this excerpt.

Holding

Opinion is truncated. This excerpt contains only the preliminary order granting certiorari before judgment, unsealing a limited portion of the grand jury record, and directing the parties to brief jurisdictional and procedural questions. No holding on the merits is presented.

Rule

Opinion is truncated. No black-letter rule of law is established in this preliminary procedural order granting certiorari before judgment.

Reasoning

Opinion is truncated and does not contain the Court's reasoning on the merits. The order reflects three procedural determinations: First, the Court exercised its discretion to grant certiorari before judgment by the Court of Appeals, reflecting the exceptional public importance and need for expedited resolution. Second, the Court partially granted a joint motion to unseal the record, disclosing only the grand jury's probable cause finding regarding Nixon's participation in the conspiracy while maintaining confidentiality of other sealed materials. This balanced transparency in criminal proceedings against the need for grand jury secrecy and confidentiality of ongoing prosecution materials. Third, the Court sua sponte requested briefing on threshold jurisdictional questions—appealability of the District Court order and the Court's mandamus jurisdiction—ensuring proper foundation for any merits decision.

Judgment

Certiorari granted before judgment; joint motion to unseal record denied except as to grand jury probable cause finding; parties directed to brief jurisdictional questions.

Why it matters

This excerpt is incomplete and does not contain the landmark merits decision for which United States v. Nixon is known. The full opinion (418 U.S. 683) is a foundational case for separation of powers, executive privilege, and judicial review. Students should consult the complete merits opinion for the substantive constitutional holdings regarding presidential privilege and the rule of law. This preliminary order demonstrates the Court's certiorari-before-judgment authority in cases of exceptional national importance.

Opinion

No. 73-1766. No. 73-1834. United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.; and Nixon, President of the United States v. United States. [MAJORITY] Petitions for certiorari before judgment to C. A. D. C. Cir. 1. Joint motion of the Special Prosecutor and counsel for the President to unseal those portions of the record ordered sealed by the District Court on May 13, 1974, denied except for the following extract from the sealed record: “On February 25, 1974, in the course of its consideration of the indictment in the instant case, the June 5, 1972, Grand Jury, by a vote of 19-0, determined that there is probable cause to believe that Richard M. Nixon (among others) was a member of the conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice charged in Count I of the instant indictment, and the Grand Jury authorized the Special Prosecutor to identify Richard M. Nixon (among others)' as an unindicted coconspirator in connection with subsequent legal proceedings in this case.” Other than this disclosure, the sealed record! shall remain sealed. 2. In addition to questions designated by the parties in the petition for certiorari, the cross-petition for certi-orari, and the petition for writ of mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals (CA No. 74-1532), the parties are requested to brief and argue the following questions: (a) Is the District Court order of May 20, 1974, an appealable order? (b) Does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition for mandamus transmitted by the Court of Appeals to this Court? 3. Printing of any portions of the record that have been filed in this Court under seal shall be dispensed with. Any portions of the briefs that counsel deem necessary to keep confidential in order to conform with the provisions of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted under seal to this Court, and counsel in oral argument shall refrain from disclosing any portions of the record that are under seal. Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.