Landmark Supreme Court Cases A descendant of English

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

A descendant of English Law from Revolutionary times, American Law represents the people and the laws they have created. Power is divided among three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The purpose of each branch is to, respectively, create laws, interpret the law, and judge law through a system of court. If the laws of the constitution, executive orders or state constitutions are violated, case law ensues. Legal decisions based on prior cases and established law are made, usually by means of a judge and/or a jury.

Civil Law commonly refers to disputes over two separate parties such as businesses or families. Case material often revolves around matters like accidents, contracts, wills, divorce and other private issues. A jury may or not be used, depending on the importance or amount of money involved. Criminal Law commonly refers to the trial of a single party over crime violations. Concerning violent matters like burglary, arson, rape and murder, accused defendants are punished if proven guilty. A grand jury is usually commissioned when complaints are classified as felonies.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases Marbury v. Madison (1803) Mc. Culloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Korematsu v. United States (1946) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Mapp V. Ohio (1961) Engel v. Vitale, 1962 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) Gideon v. Wainwright (1964) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) Furman v. Georgia, (1972) Gregg v. Georgia, (1976) Roe v. Wade (1973) United States v. Nixon (1974) Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, 1978 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 Texas v. Johnson (1989) New Jersey vs. T. L. O. , 1985 Bethel School District vs. Frasier, 1986

Terms: Commerce Clause Supremacy Clause Necessary and Proper Clause First Amendment Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment Eighth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Until midnight on his last day in office outgoing President John Adams, a Federalist, appoints 82 Federalist judges. These "midnight judges" represented a threat to incoming President Thomas Jefferson, a Democrat-Republican. Jefferson feared Federalist interpretation of the law for the next 20 years, a fear that came true. Since some of the appointments were made late into the night, Adams could not have them delivered because the mail service was closed for the day. That morning, Secretary of State James Madison discovered these appointments on his desk. Jefferson ordered him not to deliver them. William Marbury, a would-be justice of the peace, applied to the Court to have his commission granted by asking for a writ of mandamus or order to act. Question: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?

Conclusion: Yes; yes; and it depends. Chief Justice John Marshall stated when the conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. The court found that it had limited power over the issue; He recognized he would be correct in ordering Madison to deliver the papers but feared weakening the image of the Court if President Jefferson refused to comply. With no precedent or previous cases to refer to, they decided that the Judiciary Act, which failed to specify judiciary powers and which Marbury had used to submit his claim directly to the Court, was unconstitutional. This granted the court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. In this way the Court was able to rule a law unconstitutional and thus created the important precedent of judicial review. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

In the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall set three principles of judicial review: (1) The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (2) If a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution rules. (3) The judicial branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution. Thus, it must be able to determine when a law conflicts with the Constitution and nullify that law. The power of judicial review serves as a check on the actions of the executive and legislative branches. Through its rulings, the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of laws, helping the police and other courts apply them.

Mc. Culloch v. Maryland (1819) The creation of the Federal Bank of the United States, which had been established in the early nineteenth century, had caused competition in certain states. In an effort to encourage business on the state level, the bank of Maryland sought to tax on “all banks not chartered by the state. ” Such banks included the nation’s federal bank. Maryland brought suit against James Mc. Culloch, the head of the federal bank’s Baltimore branch, in an effort to receive the tax. Mc. Culloch refused to pay and the case was appealed to the SC. Question: The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law violate the constitution?

Yes and yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to create a federal bank and that Maryland could not tax any part of the national government. Writing for the opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed implied (necessary and proper? ) powers not clearly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution and the laws made in by Congress are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states (supremacy clause). This case emphasized Federalism! However, the delegated powers of the federal government are greater than that of a state.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) A man named Aaron Ogden had purchased a state permit to travel waters between New York City and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons ran a steamboat in the same area and thus, created competition. Gibbons received a Federal license and claimed that his license superseded (had greater authority than) that of Ogden brought suit against Gibbons, earning an injunction that placed restrictions on Gibbons appealed to the US Supreme Court. Question: Did the Federal government have jurisdiction over the State of New York in this case?

Yes. The Court found that New York's licensing requirement was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating commerce and trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce. This case helped to clarify one of the delegated powers of congress.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) In the deep south after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws – state laws that restricted the rights of blacks and maintained the old slave lifestyles – were created. One such example was segregation (separating public facilities into black and white divisions). In Louisiana, white and colored citizens were required to use different water fountains, sit in separate cars and wait in different lines. A man named Homer Plessy was arrested in 1892 for refusing to give up his first-class train ticket due to lineage. Although he was only one-eighth black, Plessy was ordered to move out of the whites-only section. Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional?

No. The state law is within constitutional boundaries. In a 7 -1 decision, the majority opinion upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. The Justices conceded that the 14 th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. Therefore the state did not violate the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Korematsu v. United States (1944) During World War II, the White House issued Executive Order 9066, a “wartime necessity” whose constitutionality would sweep the nation with controversy. The order required that all Americans of Japanese ancestry be placed in internment camps, regardless of loyalty. Fred Korematsu, a man of Japanese ancestry, had evaded internment. Arguing that the internment violated the rights of Japanese Americans, Korematsu’s suit eventually reached the Supreme Court. Question: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

NO. In a 6 -3 ruling, the court concluded that the executive order was necessary at the time and was Constitutional. The Court held that the need to protect against espionage (spying) during war outweighed individual rights. No evidence existed that Americans of Japanese descent were spying for Japan. The outcome of this case is often seen as racist; widespread fear of the Japanese had advocated the stripping of American civil liberties. During the 1980’s the government apologized for its actions, paying reparations to those who had suffered internment.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) By the time the fifties rolled by, America was still a nation of racism and segregation. In Kansas, public schools could allow segregation in communities with a population over 15, 000. In 1951, a man named Oliver Brown – as well as dozens of others members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) – brought suit against Kansas’ Board of Education. Brown’s daughter had been forbidden to attend a white elementary school six blocks away, forcing her to attend a black school more than thirty blocks away. Brown and his lawyers argued that public facilities were indeed “separate” but not “equal. ” Question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14 th Amendment?

In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the separate but equal doctrine was unconstitutional, overturning the 70 -year-old decision of Plessy v. Ferguson. Although the court ordered the nation to desegregate “with all deliberate speed, ” many sections of the south took decades to finally cooperate. While this case is widely recognized as one of the most important in American history, it would be another 20 years before any action.

Roe v. Wade (1973) Perhaps the most controversial case in history, Roe v. Wade established that premise that state laws restricting abortion were unconstitutional and violated a woman’s right to privacy. In 1971, Norma Mc. Carthy, under the alias of Jane Roe, became pregnant in Texas. The state’s strict abortion laws led to one of America’s greatest Supreme Court cases. Question: Are state anti-abortion laws a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Yes. In a 7 -2 decision, the court ruled that state abortion laws were unconstitutional. However, during the third trimester, states can outlaw abortions completely. Although the controversy over fetus termination had been brewing prior to the 70’s, Roe v. Wade ignited a bomb of debate that has only grown since then. Currently, certain states – and hundreds of organizations – seek to overturn the 33 year-old supreme court decision.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) The case of Mapp v. Ohio was a giant step toward improved justice in criminal law. In 1961, Cleveland police received a tip that a Ms. Mapp was harboring a fugitive. Without a search warrant, the officers barged into Mapp’s house while she was home, and while looking for the fugitive, found pornographic material in her basement. Arresting her for having the obscene material, which violated Ohio law, Mapp was put on trial and convicted. Question: May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal trial ?

The Supreme Court ruled 6 -3 that the search was in violation of the fourth amendment’s “unreasonable search and seizure” clause. The Court declared that "all evidence obtained by an illegal search is inadmissible (NOT ALLOWED) in a state court. " Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. Therefore, the evidence found in Mapp’s home would be exempted from court This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It created the “exclusionary rule” which required that illegally obtained evidence be excluded as evidence from trials at all levels. Currently, whenever police or government officials are told to search privately-owned property, they must present owners with a warrant.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) In Florida, a man named Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with stealing from vending machines. Florida law recognized such a crime as a felony, entitling Gideon to go to juried court. However, too poor to afford a lawyer, Gideon demanded that Florida provide him one. When his request was refused, he was forced to represent himself. After serving five years in prison, Gideon appealed his case to the Supreme Court, claiming that his fourteenth amendment right to “due process of law” had been violated. Question: Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Distinguished Members of the United States Supreme Court: I have been convicted of breaking and entering a poolroom and taking $65. 00 from the vending machines. According to Florida law, this is considered a felony. Prior to the trial, I requested that an attorney be appointed to handle my case, as I am too poor to afford one. The judge refused my request, saying that the Betts vs. Brady case determined that in state courts (such as Florida’s) defendants without funds are entitled to an attorney only in a cases involving a capital offense (when the punishment is death). During the trial, I did about as well as could be expected from a layman. Unfortunately, the jury returned a guilty verdict. I appealed my case to the Florida Supreme Court, explaining that my Sixth Amendment right to an attorney had been violated. My appeal was denied. Now, I am writing to you, the highest court in the land, hoping that you will agree with me that the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a lawyer be appointed for all defendants who are too poor to afford one. Sincerely, Clarence Earl Gideon

Yes. The court unanimously ruled that every American had the 6 th Amendment right to be represented by counsel (lawyer), regardless of wealth, status, race, education or crime which is necessary for a fair trial. Currently, whenever one is arrested, he or she is allowed a phone call to their lawyer. If they are without one or cannot afford one, the state is entitled to provide one itself. A court appointed attorney/lawyer = Public Defender

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) In 1966, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested by Arizona police. After being interrogated for two hours, he confessed to having committed robbery, kidnapping and rape. When Miranda appeared in court, the defense used his confession as their only evidence. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison. Following the ruling, Miranda’s lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the fifth amendment’s guarantees of selfincrimination had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence gained through Miranda’s interrogation were inadmissible. Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Yes. In a 5 -4 decision, the Court held that prosecutors could not use statements taken while questioning suspects unless they were aware of their 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court noted that certain methods of interrogation could cause individuals to confess to crimes they had not committed and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court specifically outlined the necessary police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel (lawyer) present during interrogations.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have a lawyer present now and during anytime of future questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, you will be appointed one free of charge if you wish. ” Currently, whenever one is arrested, they are read their “Miranda Rights. ” Anything said prior to being taken into custody however, can be used against suspects.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) In 1965, John Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt, decided to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day. However, in 1968, their parents appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that First Amendment Rights – the freedom of speech – had been violated. Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

YES. In 7 -2 decision, the court ruled that the Tinker’s punishment had been unconstitutional. Peaceful protest, such as wearing the black armbands, had not disrupted the school in such a way that danger had been present. This case, while controversial, was a huge step toward guaranteeing Americans their First Amendment rights.

Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process. . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures. " Fraser was suspended from school for two days. Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?

No. The Court found that it was appropriate to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language in a school. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment allowed schools to prohibit vulgar and lewd speech since such speech was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education. “ Your rights end when they step on the rights of others!

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1983 The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. The school principal, received proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court. Question: Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

No. In a 5 -to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to allow total freedom of student speech. The Court held that schools must respect the right to privacy and that schools retained the right to refuse free speech if it was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order. '" Schools did not violate the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonable” and related to “legitimate educational concerns. "

New Jersey v T. L. O. (1984) Two students were found smoking in the girls bathroom. One student confessed but the other, T. L. O. (her initials), denied smoking. In fact, T. L. O. claimed she did not smoke at all. The school Assistant Principal then proceeded to search T. L. O. 's purse. In the purse he found Marijuana in small bags, rolling paper, a large amount of cash and a list of names who owed T. L. O. money. The police were summoned and T. L. O. was arrested. T. L. O. was convicted and through the appeals process the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. T. L. O. claimed that the search of her purse violated her Constitutional rights. Question: Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

No. Considering the search was on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T. L. O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse. The Court ruled against T. L. O. This set new standards for school officials. The Court ruled that school officials may search a student under "reasonable suspicion. " The standard is less than that required of police therefore giving school officials much broader search powers under the fourth amendment.

Engle v Vitale (1962) The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country. “ Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.

University of California Regents v Bakke (1976) Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, was rejected twice for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, a government effort to remedy longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted. Bakke contended, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in reverse discrimination?

Affirmative Action: policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration when hiring employees or admitting students to schools. Reverse Discrimination: discrimination AGAINST whites on the basis of racial quota (specific number) programs. Ex. An employer needs to hire 10 people. 5 can be white men BUT 3 must be women, and 2 must be black.

No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Justices ordered the medical school to admit Bakke. The Court argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, they also stated that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutional. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) In 1984, Gregory Johnson, protested at the Republican National Convention along with hundreds of others. After walking down streets, Johnson burned an American flag. Although no one was injured, Johnson was arrested for violating Texas’ outlawing of flag burning. Johnson appealed to Supreme Court after being sentenced to one year in prison and a $2000 fine, claiming that his First Amendment Rights had been infringed. Issue: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Yes. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5 -4 that Johnson’s freedom of expression was constitutional. This decision overturned laws outlawing flag-burning in 48 states. Since then, there have been many attempts to pass a Flag Burning Amendment into law. It remains a controversial issue.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) The Heart of Atlanta motel was a large, 216 -room motel in Atlanta, Georgia, which refused to rent rooms to black patrons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating this Act. Question: Did Congress, in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

No. The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 was constitutional. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to businesses having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . . " The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.

Furman v. Georgia (1972) Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The jury imposed the death penalty on Furman without any guidelines to go by in their decision. This case concerns the constitutionality of the death sentence. Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Yes. The Court's opinion held that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. A main concern of the Court was racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the Congress to create specific guidelines for punishment in capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in an erratic or biased manner. This case represents the first time the Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty. The dissenting Justices argued that the courts had no right to challenge legislative judgment on the effectiveness and justice of punishments. The majority however held that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment, which violated the Eighth Amendment.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the death sentence. Gregg challenged his death sentence claiming that his sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Question: Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?

No. In a 7 -to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In this case the court upheld that the death penalty is constitutional, so long as there are guidelines for judges and juries in the decision to issue the death sentence. The Court did, however, state that the mandatory use of the death penalty would be prohibited under the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. This decision became the first time the Court stated that "punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution. "

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 1971 After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14, 000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court. Question: Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for stateimposed segregation?

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that since schools were not desegregating the powers of the Court were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that school busing was a proper remedy for the problem of racial inequality among schools. This was done to ensure the schools would be "properly" integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their race.

U. S. v. Nixon (1974) A grand jury returned indictments (accusations of a crime) against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office as evidence. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena (legal order) claiming "executive privilege, " which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Question: Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

No. The Court agreed that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but not in matters concerning "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. " Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes. Lesson: No one is above the law i. e. Magna Carta