Nixon v. United States - Significance, Another Nixon, A Different Impeachment, Simple Words: "try" And "sole"

senate petitioner court respondent

Petitioner

Walter Nixon, U.S. District Judge

Respondent

United States, et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That Senate Rule XI, which allowed a Senate committee to hear evidence against an impeached official and present a report to the full Senate, violated the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

David Overlock Stewart

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Kenneth Starr, U.S. Solicitor General

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

13 January 1993

Decision

That Nixon's claim regarding Senate Rule XI was nonjusticiable--that is, it was outside the Court's control, since the Constitution provided that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments."

Related Cases

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993).
Reno v. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993).

Additional Topics

Nixon v. United States - Another Nixon, A Different Impeachment

Usually when the name "Nixon" is used in the context of impeachment, people think of President Richard M. Nixon, against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings for his role in the coverup of the Watergate scandal. President Nixon was never impeached, however, because he chose to resign his office. The Nixon in Nixon v. United States was Walter Nixon, Chief Judge of the…

Nixon v. United States - Simple Words: "try" And "sole"

The Supreme Court voted to affirm. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Court, cited the Court's statement in Baker v. Carr (1962) that a controversy was nonjusticiable in any situation where there was "a textually demonstrated constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it . . …

Nixon v. United States - White Questions The Justiciability Ruling

Three justices filed concurring opinions. Justice Stevens wrote that there was no need to haggle over the words "try" and "sole;" all the Court needed to settle the case was to recognize "the central fact that the Framers decided to assign the impeachment power to the Legislative Branch." Justices White and Souter in their concurring opinions, Stevens wrote, were also looking too deeply into the q…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.