Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Nixon v. US

(1993)

Supreme Court of the United States - 506 U.S. 224

tl;dr:

[Abrv.] The method of impeachment proceedings is a nonjusticiable political questions.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Nixon v. US

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nixon v. US case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingNixon v. US case brief facts & holding

Facts:Article I sets forth specific procedures for Congress to conduct...

Holding: Impeachment proceedings are non-justiciable political questionsTextual limit: “sole power to...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nixon v. US case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Nixon v. US | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: CHIEF Justice Rehnquist
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves Walter L. Nixon Jr., a former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, who was convicted of making false statements before a federal grand jury and sentenced to prison. Nixon argues that Senate Rule XI, which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an individual who has been impeached and to report that evidence to the full Senate, violates the Impeachment Trial Clause. The Supreme Court concludes that the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, and the word "sole" indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else. The Constitution's use of the word "try" in the Impeachment Trial Clause does not limit the method by which the Senate may proceed in trying impeachments. Judicial review of the Senate's trial would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nixon v. US case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Justice Stevens agrees with the decision to give the power of impeachment to the Legislative Branch, citing the Senate's handling of Samuel Chase's impeachment in 1805. He believes that respecting the authority of another branch of government means not assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios. He supports judicial restraint and avoiding potential anomalies that could arise from a different view, aligning with The Chief Justice's perspective.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Justice White,Justice Souter
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case involves a petitioner who argues that the Senate's method of convicting him on two articles of impeachment violates the Constitution. The Court finds that it cannot review this argument, but Justice White disagrees. The majority found a clear textual commitment in the Constitution's use of the word "sole" in the Impeachment Trial Clause, indicating that the Senate has exclusive interpretive authority over the Clause. The author disagrees with the majority's interpretation of the term "sole," arguing that it emphasizes the distinct role of each House in the impeachment process and effectuates the separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative aspects of impeachment. Ultimately, Justice White agrees with the judgment because the Senate fulfilled its constitutional duty by "trying" the petitioner. The passage argues that the Court's refusal to review the constitutionality of legislative acts related to impeachment based solely on the word "sole" in the Impeachment Trial Clause is confusing and upsets the Framers' careful design of a balanced system where impeachments tried by the Senate would control the largely unaccountable Judiciary, and judicial review would ensure that the Senate adhered to a minimal set of procedural standards in conducting impeachment trials.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nixon v. US case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nixon v. US case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Nixon v. US

Chat for Nixon v. US
brief-771
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.