## Facts

- After resigning in 1974, former President Richard M. Nixon left presidential materials in government custody, including tens of millions of pages of documents and hundreds of tape reels.
- Nixon and the Administrator of General Services (GSA) executed an agreement to store the materials near Nixon’s home, limiting access without mutual consent and allowing Nixon to withdraw items over time, with provisions for eventual destruction of tapes.
- Congress enacted the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA), directing the GSA Administrator to take custody of Nixon’s presidential materials.
- The PRMPA required government archivists to screen the materials to return personal and private items to Nixon, preserve historically valuable materials, and make relevant materials available for judicial proceedings subject to any applicable rights, defenses, or privileges.
- The PRMPA required the Administrator to issue regulations governing eventual public access, using criteria that included protection of privacy and constitutional rights.
- Nixon sued in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the PRMPA was unconstitutional; the district court upheld the Act, and Nixon appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the PRMPA violates separation of powers by directing executive-branch custody and screening of a former President’s materials.
2. Whether the PRMPA on its face impermissibly impairs executive (presidential) communications privilege.
3. Whether the PRMPA violates Nixon’s constitutionally protected privacy interests.
4. Whether the PRMPA violates First Amendment associational rights by authorizing government review and potential disclosure.
5. Whether the PRMPA is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it targets Nixon without a judicial trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the PRMPA in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held the Act did not violate separation of powers because custody and administration remained within the Executive Branch and did not prevent the Executive from performing constitutionally assigned functions.
- The Court held the Act did not on its face extinguish or unduly burden executive privilege because it preserved the ability to assert privileges and other protections in judicial proceedings.
- The Court held the Act’s screening and regulatory safeguards sufficiently accounted for privacy and First Amendment concerns at the facial-challenge stage.
- The Court held the Act was not a bill of attainder because it served nonpunitive purposes and did not impose legislative punishment.

## Legal Principles

- Separation-of-powers analysis turns on whether a statutory scheme prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions; not all interbranch interaction is unconstitutional.
- Congress may direct executive-branch custody and archival screening of a former President’s presidential materials when implemented through executive officials and justified by legitimate governmental objectives.
- Presidential communications privilege protects communications made in performance of presidential responsibilities during policy and decisionmaking; a former President may assert the privilege, but it carries less weight than when asserted by an incumbent President.
- A statute does not facially violate executive privilege where it preserves the opportunity to assert applicable rights, defenses, and privileges in later judicial or administrative contexts.
- Public officials retain constitutional privacy interests in personal matters unrelated to public acts, but statutory safeguards (screening, return of personal materials, and privacy-protective access rules) may be sufficient to defeat a facial privacy challenge.
- A law directed at a named individual is not a bill of attainder absent legislative punishment; a “class of one” may be legitimate where circumstances are unique and the law serves nonpunitive purposes such as preservation of evidence and historical records.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the PRMPA as a constitutional framework for executive-branch custody, screening, and regulated access to a former President’s presidential materials, concluding that the Act’s structure and safeguards did not, on its face, violate separation of powers, executive privilege, privacy, First Amendment associational rights, or the Bill of Attainder Clause.


Nixon v. Adm'r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977)