Walter L. Nixon v. United States et al.
The Court determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.
506 U.S. 224 · No. 91-740 · 1992 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jan 13, 1993 · argued Oct 14, 1992
Judicial power · Standing to sue: justiciable question
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Walter L. Nixon lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Walter L. Nixon was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1992 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
David SouterWrote a concurrence
Byron WhiteWrote a concurrence
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Walter L. NixonJudge (United States)
- Respondent
- United States et al.United States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 13, 1993DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Walter L. Nixon lost.
- Oct 14, 1992ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: justiciable question, newest first.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner v. Betty Dukes et al.564 U.S. 338Jun 20, 2011 · 564 U.S. 338Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Richard Vieth, Norma Jean Vieth, and Susan Furey v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.541 U.S. 267Apr 28, 2004 · 541 U.S. 267Judicial power5–45–4 band
- National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interior et al.538 U.S. 803May 27, 2003 · 538 U.S. 803Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Arthur Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Troy Ashmus, etc.523 U.S. 740May 26, 1998 · 523 U.S. 740Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Ohio Forestry Association, Inc. v. Sierra Club, et al.523 U.S. 726May 18, 1998 · 523 U.S. 726Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Eloise Anderson, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Deshawn Green, Debby Venturella and Diana P. Bertollt, etc.513 U.S. 557Feb 22, 1995 · 513 U.S. 557Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Morgan et al.413 U.S. 1Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 1Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Poe et al. v. Ullman, State's Attorney367 U.S. 497Jun 19, 1961 · 367 U.S. 497Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc., et al.356 U.S. 309Apr 28, 1958 · 356 U.S. 309Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Nukk et al. v. Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.350 U.S. 869Oct 24, 1955 · 350 U.S. 869Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGRATH, Attorney General, et al.341 U.S. 123Apr 30, 1951 · 341 U.S. 123Judicial power5–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.