Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Last updated
Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 3, 1979
Decided March 3, 1980
Full case nameKissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Citations445 U.S. 136 ( more )
100 S. Ct. 960; 63 L. Ed. 2d 267
Case history
PriorReporters Committee for Freedom of Press v. Vance, 442 F. Supp. 383 (D.D.C. 1977); affirmed, 589 F.2d 1116 (D.C. Cir. 1978); cert. granted, 441 U.S. 904(1979).
Holding
The Freedom of Information Act does not cover documents removed from governmental custody.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell
Concur/dissentBrennan
Concur/dissentStevens
Marshall and Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press , 445 U.S. 136 (1980), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court ruled that Henry Kissinger was not required under the Act to turn over transcripts of phone conversations he made as an adviser to President Richard Nixon.

By a 52 margin, the court overturned the decisions of two lower Federal courts and decided that Kissinger's removal of the transcripts from the State Department removed the documents from the purview of the Freedom of Information Act. In his opinion for the majority, Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that once the documents had been withdrawn, "the agency has neither the custody or control necessary to enable it to withhold." [1]

Kissinger had removed thousands of pages of the phone transcripts in the waning days of his term as Secretary of State. The documents were first stored at Nelson Rockefeller's Kykuit estate in Westchester County, New York and were later given to the Library of Congress. In a decision affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals, the United States District Court ruled that Kissinger had "wrongfully removed" the documents and ordered the Library of Congress to return the papers to the State Department so that they could be processed for disclosure. [1]

The Supreme Court confirmed the decisions of the lower courts that Kissinger's transcripts when he was Richard Nixon's national security advisor did not fall under the purview of the Freedom of Information Act, nor would it apply to any other members of a President's executive office staff. The only documents that were legitimately covered by the request would have been from his term as Secretary of State from September 1973 to January 1977. [1]

Related Research Articles

First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Watergate scandal Political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s

The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal in the United States involving the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon from 1972 to 1974 that led to Nixon's resignation. The scandal stemmed from the Nixon administration's continuous attempts to cover up its involvement in the June 17, 1972 break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Washington, D.C. Watergate Office Building. After the five perpetrators were arrested, the press and the U.S. Justice Department connected the cash found on them at the time to the Nixon re-election campaign committee. Further investigations, along with revelations during subsequent trials of the burglars, led the U.S. House of Representatives to grant its judiciary committee additional investigation authority to probe into "certain matters within its jurisdiction", and the U.S. Senate to create a special investigative committee. The resulting Senate Watergate hearings were broadcast "gavel-to-gavel" nationwide by PBS and aroused public interest. Witnesses testified that the president had approved plans to cover up administration involvement in the break-in, and that there was a voice-activated taping system in the Oval Office. Throughout the investigation, the administration resisted its probes, which led to a constitutional crisis.

Telephone tapping is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part to the decision. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

<i>United States v. Nixon</i> United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. Issued on July 24, 1974, the decision was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.

The Nixon White House tapes are audio recordings of conversations between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Nixon administration officials, Nixon family members, and White House staff, produced between 1971 and 1973.

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case relieving a media defendant of liability for broadcasting a taped conversation of a labor official talking to other union people about a teachers' strike.

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.

The introduction of the technology of communications created a field in which new laws must be introduced to protect and secure the privacy of telephone communications, whilst allowing for security and policing to occur through the recording of telephone calls. Telephone recording laws differ according to the country or region. Some of the countries and regions with differences in telephone recording laws include: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Turkey, The United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Each region has differing laws including specifications in regards to recordings and the privacy of individuals on the call.

David Ginsburg (lawyer)

Charles David Ginsburg was an American political advisor and lawyer who was among the founders of Americans for Democratic Action and served as executive director of the Kerner Commission, which warned that the U.S. was "moving toward two societies—one black, one white, separate and unequal."

Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., 532 U.S. 1 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which applies to "intra agency memoranda or letters", is applicable to documents within the Department of the Interior which discussed plans for the allocation of water in the Klamath River Basin. The Court held unanimously that the exemption did not apply.

Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S 425 (1977), is a landmark court case concerning the principle of presidential privilege and whether the public is allowed to view a President's “confidential documents”. The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974, ordered that the Administrator of General Services obtain President Richard Nixon’s presidential papers and tape recordings. In addition, the Act further ordered that government archivists seize these materials. These archivists would preserve the material deemed historic and return to former President Nixon the materials deemed private. Furthermore, this Act stated that material that was preserved could be used in judicial hearings and proceedings. Immediately after this Act was enacted, Richard Nixon filed a lawsuit in a federal district court claiming that the Act violated the principle of separation of powers, the principle of presidential privilege, Nixon's personal privacy, his First Amendment right of association, and further asserted that it amounted to a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder.

Impeachment process against Richard Nixon 1970s preliminary process to remove the President of the United States

The impeachment process against Richard Nixon began in the United States House of Representatives on October 30, 1973, following the series of high-level resignations and firings widely called the "Saturday Night Massacre" during the course of the Watergate scandal.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Greenhouse, Linda (March 4, 1980), "Kissinger Is Upheld in Transcript Case; Freedom of Information Act Does Not Apply, High Court Rules Supreme Court Roundup Justices Back Kissinger In Denying Transcripts Conversations as Security Adviser Two Dissenting Opinions Filed Perjury Faculty Union", The New York Times , retrieved June 1, 2010CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)