Nixon v. United States
Significance, Another Nixon, A Different Impeachment, Simple Words: "try" And "sole"
Walter Nixon, U.S. District Judge
United States, et al.
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
Date of Decision
13 January 1993
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."
- 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).
- Ohio Sedition Trial (7 ): 1989 - The Underlying Crimes, Raising The Stakes, The Long Road To The Verdicts Begins, Expensive Acquittals And Mistrials
- New York v. United States - Significance, Radioactive Waste, "take-title" Provision, Dissent: Upsetting A "delicate Compromise"
- Nixon v. United States - Further Readings
- Nixon v. United States - Significance
- Nixon v. United States - Another Nixon, A Different Impeachment
- Nixon v. United States - Simple Words: "try" And "sole"
- Nixon v. United States - White Questions The Justiciability Ruling
- Nixon v. United States - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias