Trump v. Vance
591 U.S. ____ (2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sitting President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need that would require a prosecutor to show a special necessity for the documents.
Facts:
- In 2018, the New York County District Attorney's Office, led by Cyrus Vance, Jr., began an investigation into business transactions involving President Donald J. Trump and his affiliated organizations.
- A year later, the District Attorney's office, acting on behalf of a state grand jury, served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, LLP.
- Mazars USA is the personal accounting firm for President Trump.
- The subpoena directed Mazars to produce financial records related to President Trump and his businesses, including tax returns, from 2011 to the present.
- The records sought relate to President Trump in his personal capacity and cover periods both before and during his presidency.
Procedural Posture:
- President Trump, in his personal capacity, sued District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. and Mazars USA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The President sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent enforcement of the grand jury subpoena, arguing he was absolutely immune from state criminal process.
- The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris but held in the alternative that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief.
- President Trump, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision on abstention but affirmed its denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that presidential immunity does not bar enforcement of the subpoena for private papers.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article II of the Constitution or the Supremacy Clause categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President for his personal papers?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No, Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. Two centuries of precedent establish that no citizen, not even the President, is above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. Historical practice, stretching from Jefferson in the Burr trial to Clinton, confirms that Presidents are subject to judicial process. The court rejected the President's arguments for absolute immunity based on potential diversion from official duties, stigma, and harassment, finding these concerns were addressed and dismissed in prior cases like Clinton v. Jones. The public has a right to every man's evidence, and this principle applies with full force in state criminal proceedings. The court also declined to create a heightened need standard for personal papers, distinguishing this from cases involving privileged official communications, because such a standard would impede fair and effective law enforcement. A President can still challenge a specific subpoena on grounds that it is motivated by bad faith, seeks to retaliate for official acts, or would concretely impede the performance of his constitutional duties.
Concurring - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes, while a President does not have absolute immunity, a state criminal subpoena must be subject to a heightened standard to protect the Presidency. The longstanding 'demonstrated, specific need' standard from United States v. Nixon should apply here to balance the state's interest in criminal investigation with the President's Article II duties. This standard would reduce the risk of unwarranted burdens and harassment. Although the majority opinion rejects the Nixon standard, its holding that a President may challenge a subpoena for being overly broad, intended to harass, or interfering with official duties provides significant protection that may lead to a similar analysis in practice.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, a President does not have absolute immunity from the issuance of a subpoena, based on the original understanding of the Constitution. However, a President may be entitled to relief from the subpoena's enforcement. The proper course is to vacate and remand for the lower court to apply the standard from United States v. Burr, which allows a President to show that 'his duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects.' If a President makes this showing, a court must enjoin enforcement of the subpoena to protect the unique and vital functions of the executive office.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes, a state criminal subpoena for a sitting President's records should not be enforced unless a heightened standard is met, which the majority fails to provide. The decision threatens to impair the Presidency by subjecting it to potential harassment from thousands of local prosecutors, which could be used for political purposes. The court should have required the prosecutor to demonstrate a 'demonstrated, specific need' for the records and to show why their production is necessary while the President is still in office. The majority's holding provides no real protection and relegates the President to the same meager defenses available to any citizen, ignoring the unique and indispensable role the President plays in our constitutional structure.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the foundational principle that no person, including the President, is above the law, and extends this rule squarely to state criminal proceedings. By rejecting both absolute immunity and a heightened-need standard for a President's private papers, the Court prevented the creation of a new legal shield for the executive. The ruling maintains the traditional power of state grand juries while still allowing a President to raise specific, targeted challenges to a subpoena's enforcement. This leaves the door open for future litigation over whether a particular subpoena would impede constitutional duties, setting the stage for case-by-case analysis rather than a categorical rule.
Unlock the full brief for Trump v. Vance