Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Lewis Powell dealing with presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office. The Court found that a president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." [1]
Furthermore, the Court stated that the review of documents by government archivists would be no more of an intrusion than an in camera inspection of documents permitted under the Court's majority decision in United States v. Nixon. [6] The Court rejected the argument that the Act invaded Richard Nixon's right of privacy, as there would be ...
The Nixon pardon of Sept. 8, 1974, caused a political and legal earthquake that still reverberates in the age of Trump. How Richard Nixon's pardon 50 years ago provides fuel for Donald Trump's ...
In 1974, Burger wrote for a unanimous court in United States v. Nixon, which rejected Nixon's invocation of executive privilege in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The ruling played a major role in Nixon's resignation. Burger joined the majority in Roe v. Wade in holding that the right to privacy prohibited states from banning abortions.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
John Dean, former White House counsel for the Nixon administration, said he believes former President Nixon “would have survived” the Watergate scandal if the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling ...
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), was a statutory interpretation case in the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] Although one commentator characterizes the case's implications as meaning "[t]he president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment," [2] the Court majority itself made no categorical constitutional pronouncement about ...