Trump v. Vance - 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020)

Rule:

Federal criminal subpoenas do not rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive’s ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions

Facts:

In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office—acting on behalf of a grand jury—served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for financial records relating to the President and his businesses. The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause. The District Court dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, and, in the alternative, held that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief. The Second Circuit rejected the District Court’s dismissal under Younger but agreed with the court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that presidential immunity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena and rejecting the argument of the United States as amicus curiae that a state grand jury subpoena seeking the President’s documents must satisfy a heightened showing of need.

Issue:

Did presidential immunity absolutely bar enforcement of a criminal subpoena? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the President was neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need because no citizen, not even the President, was categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. According to the Court, Article II and the Supremacy Clause did not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.