Citation network
Nixon Vs. Administrator of General Services
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1977
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
of General Services - 433 U.S. 425 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) Nixon v. AdministratorSearch
-
into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. NixonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Weekly Comp. of Pres.Doc. 1104 (1974). We shall also refer to the agreement as the Nixon-Sampson agreement. See Nixon v. SampsonSearch
-
ed. and Supp. V), and also seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of the agreement. Nixon v. SampsonSearch
-
archivists. 408 F.Supp. at 339-340. Judge McGowan, writing for the District Court, quoted the following from Watson v. BuckSearch
-
U. S. 99 , 431 U. S. 104 (1977). See also Thorpe v. HousingSearch
-
the Act offends the presumptive confidentiality of Presidential communications recognized in United States v. NixonSearch
-
Humphrey's Executor v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 295 U. S. 630 . See also O'Donoghue v. UnitedSearch
-
Springer v. PhilippineSearch
-
was expressly affirmed by this Court only three years ago in United States v. NixonSearch
-
Court essentially embraced Mr. Justice Jackson's view, expressed in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. United States v. NixonSearch
-
or privileges that any person may invoke, including, of course, a valid claim of executive privilege. United States v. NixonSearch
-
material generated in the Executive Branch has never been considered invalid as an invasion of its autonomy. Cf. EPA v. MinkSearch
-
privilege shields these records from archival scrutiny. We start with what was established in United States v. NixonSearch
-
Unlike United States v. NixonSearch
-
Presidency. Acceptance of that proposition would, of course, end this inquiry. The contention draws on United States v. ReynoldsSearch
-
requests for information which might interfere with the proper performance of their duties, see United States v. NixonSearch
-
Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
This Court held in United States v. NixonSearch
-
course, only as to those materials whose contents fall within the scope of the privilege recognized in United States v. NixonSearch
-
comparable to those held to justify the in camera inspection of the District Court sustained in United States v. NixonSearch
-
the legislative process, and thus to be within the scope of Congress' broad investigative power, see, e.g., Eastland v. UnitedSearch
-
civil or criminal litigation, a social Page 433 U. S. 454 interest that cannot be doubted. See United States v. NixonSearch
-
the presumption in favor of confidentiality of Presidential papers recognized in United States v. NixonSearch
-
we hold, in agreement with the District Court, that the Act, on its face, does not violate the Presidential privilege. v. PrivacySearch
-
secured by law for those who elect not to place themselves in the public spotlight. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
and congressional acquiescence gives rise to appellant's legitimate expectation of privacy in such materials. Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
public interest in subjecting the Presidential materials of appellant's administration to archival screening. Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
test, the privacy interest asserted by appellant is weaker than that found wanting in the recent decision of Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
items, and we do not understand him to suggest that his privacy claim extends to items he never saw. See United States v. MillerSearch
-
any privacy claim as to the documents and tape recordings that he has already disclosed to the public. United States v. DionisioSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief for Appellant 148, quoting United States v. PollerSearch
-
Appellant principally relies on Stanford v. TexasSearch
-
this fact has not been thought to render surveillance under the Omnibus Act unconstitutional. Cf., e.g., United States v. DonovanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial