Trump v. Vance

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, President Trump's personal accounting firm, seeking financial records and tax returns. President Trump, acting in his personal capacity, sued to block the subpoena, arguing that Article II and the Supremacy Clause granted him absolute immunity from state criminal process while in office. The District Court denied injunctive relief, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and on July 9, 2020, issued a 7-2 decision affirming the denial of injunctive relief. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, nor require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief in a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Thomas and Alito filed separate dissenting opinions. The Court held that the President is not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers, nor is he entitled to a heightened standard of need. The case was remanded to the lower courts for further proceedings.

Whether a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from a state grand jury subpoena seeking his private financial records, and whether such a subpoena must satisfy a heightened standard of need.

The decision reinforced the principle that no one, including the President, is above the law. It clarified that state criminal subpoenas directed at a sitting President's private records are constitutional and do not require a heightened standard. The ruling significantly affected the ability of local officials to investigate matters concerning sitting presidents and set a precedent for presidential accountability. It also underscored the separation of powers and the judiciary's role in checking executive power.