In United States v. Nixon, the Court suggested executive privilege is...

• A. Absolute
• B. Implicit but not absolute, with limits in criminal prosecutions
• C. Non-applicable to any records
• D. Only applies to communications with foreign leaders

Answer: (B)

Executive privilege is a constitutional tool to protect confidential presidential communications, but it isn’t unlimited. United States v. Nixon says this privilege is a qualified, not absolute, right that exists to preserve candid advice and the functioning of the executive branch, yet it can be overridden when the needs of a criminal investigation require the evidence. The Court emphasized a balance: the confidentiality of presidential communications is important, but it yields if the information is essential to the administration of justice. This is why the decision supports a limited privilege that can be overridden in criminal prosecutions. The other ideas—that the privilege is absolute, that it applies to no records, or that it only covers talks with foreign leaders—don’t fit, because the ruling recognizes a protected but not blanket exemption, and it covers a range of confidential presidential communications, not just those with foreign leaders.