Nixon loses appeal

Press, 24 June 1981, Page 9

Nixon loses appeal

NZPA-Reuter Washington The United States Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that former President Richard Nixon, his Secretary of State. Henry Kissinger, and his AttorneyGeneral, John Mitchell, can be held personally liable for damages because of an illegal wiretap placed on one of their officials.

The court split four-to-four on the issue, thus leaving unchanged an Appeals Court ruling that the former high officials could face heavy financial penalties for authorising and conducting a wiretap on an aide to Dr Kissinger, Morton Halperin.

The Nixon Administration officials said they were attempting to track down the source of leaks of classified information about, among other things, the American role in South-East Asia.

The tap remained on the Halperin family telephone for 21 monthhs from May, 1969. and never revealed any leaking of classified information. '

Instead, the tap picked up much personal and political information, some of it used bv the Nixon Administration.

As an example of such information. Mr Halperin's lawyers said that the Government .learned of an impending critical magazine article about Vietnam to which it was able to respond in advance.

The Supreme Court ruling means that the case will go back to a trial court to compute the amount of damages the officials will have to pay out of their own pockets to Mr Halperin. Under the law, they could be liable for as much as $ll6 for each day the illegal tap existed.

A lower court ruled that the tap violated the constitutional prohibition against searches without a warrant in addition to a Federal anticrime law.

An Appeals Court rejected the Government's claim that Mr Nixon and his aides should be given absolute immunity.

Not to do so, Government lawyers argued, “would seriously interfere" with the President s ability to conduct the duties of his office.

The divided opinion means that the Supreme Court has not definitely rilled on the issue of such extensive itpmunity to the President and his officials, merely that the Appeals Court ruling remains as the current state of the law until the court can rule in another case due to be heard soon.