Final answer:
In the Watergate-era case United States v. Richard M. Nixon, executive privilege was successfully challenged by the judiciary, showing that it is not absolute.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the Watergate-era case United States v. Richard M. Nixon, executive privilege was successfully challenged by the judiciary. Executive privilege is the power of the president to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in matters of national security. However, in this case, the Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the tapes recorded in the Oval Office, which eventually led to his resignation. This shows that executive privilege is not absolute and can be constrained by the judiciary.
The presidential power of Executive privilege was successfully challenged by the judiciary in the case of United States v. Richard M. Nixon during the Watergate scandal, which is an example of such power being limited.
On occasion, one of the special presidential powers that has successfully been challenged by the judiciary is d) Executive privilege. This challenge was notably seen in the Watergate-era case United States v. Richard M. Nixon, where President Nixon was ordered to hand over tapes recorded in the Oval Office, leading up to his resignation. The Supreme Court has stated that executive privilege cannot be used to avoid prosecution or certain civil suits, thereby placing limits on this presidential power.
While emergency powers have also been asserted by presidents, such as the temporary suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks, these instances did not result in successful judicial challenges in the same manner as executive privilege. Similarly, inherent powers and statutory powers have been subject to judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court occasionally defining the scope of these powers, as seen when President Harry Truman's claim to emergency powers during the Korean War was rejected in regard to seizing steel mills.