"Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his 'executive privilege' confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?"
The Court held unanimously that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, not the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications could sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The court further held that there is a limitation on executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but "gave preference to the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." (US v. Nixon). Therefore, according to the court's ruling, President Nixon had to …show more content…
Consequently, the Court reasoned that it had the power to interpret and consider claims brought under the express powers and that in this case, it had the authority to clarify all claims with respect to all powers that derived from the enumerated powers.
President Nixon claimed that there was a need for protection of such information and communication and that there was a clear separation of powers protecting the President from a subpoena.
In this case, there was no argument claiming that the privilege was necessary for the protection of diplomatic, military, or national security secrets. Nixon's position was based on the argument that as President, and as head of the Executive Branch, he was entitled to confidentiality because of the separation of powers. Thus the Court did not accept or found difficult to accept the rhetoric that there would be a significant reduction in the confidentiality of Presidential communications by the production of the material for in camera