Trump v Vance Marshall in the case of Burr, which was then used as precedent for all other cases
ich was then used as precedent for all other cases wherein Presidents
July 9, 2020
Topic: Presidency – Immunity
Petitioner: Donald J. Trump
Respondent: Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. (District Attorney of New York County)
Ponente: , J. Roberts
DOCTRINE: No citizen not even the President is categorically above the common duty to produce
evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.
FACTS:
In 2018, New York District Attorney’s Office (DA) opened an investigation into “business transactions
involving multiple individuals whose conduct may have violated state law.” A year later, in 2019, the DA,
acting on behalf of a grand jury, served a SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM on Mazars USA, LLP – the personal
accounting firm of President Trump, for financial records relating to the President and business
organizations affiliated with him, including tax returns and related schedules from 2011 to present.
Trump, acting in his personal capacity, sued the DA and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin the
enforcement of the subpoena. Trump argued that a sitting President enjoys ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from
state criminal process. The Office of Solicitor General of the US, as amicus curiae, argued that a state
grand jury subpoena must satisfy a heightened showing of need, before such subpoena may be given
effect.
The Federal District Court dismissed the case based on Younger v Harris which held that federal courts
are precluded from intervening in ongoing state criminal prosecutions.
On appeal, the Second Circuit Court also denied Trump, holding that presidential immunity did not bar
enforcement of the subpoena.
The CA agreed with the Federal District court and held that presidential immunity does not bar the
enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material,
even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President. It also rejected the
argument that a state grand jury subpoena must satisfy a heightened showing of need because the
subpoena sought information about the President in his private capacity and is not connected to the
discharge of his constitutional obligations as head of state.
Hence this petition for certiorari wherein Trump argues that the Supremacy Clause gives a sitting
president absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with such would
categorically impair a President’s performance of his functions under the Constitution. The Solicitor
General, however, urges the SC to resolve the case in holding that a state grand jury subpoena for a
sitting President must, at the very least, “satisfy a heightened standard of need.”
ISSUES:
1. W/N a sitting president is absolutely immune from criminal proceedings. NO
2. W/N a heightened standard of need must be established before subpoena may be issued against a
sitting President. NO.
HELD:
1. W/N a sitting president is absolutely immune from state criminal proceedings.
US history and jurisprudence is replete with instances wherein Presidents have uniformly testified or
produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts. This is because federal
criminal subpoenas do not rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive’s
ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions – this was the reasoning of Chief Justice
were subpoena.
Aaron Burr, the former Vice President while on trial for treason moved for a subpoena duces tecum
directed at President Jefferson in order for the President to produce the special message he had written
to Congress regarding Burr’s treasonous acts. Chief Justice Marshall held that the Constitution,
particularly, the 6th Amendment guaranteed that those accused have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses for their defense. Marshall held that a subpoena may issue to any person to whom an ordinary
subpoena may issue. And the President is “of the people” and subject to the law, and therefore the
Constitution as well. He is not above it like a King who is born to power and can do no wrong.
Two centuries after the case of Burr, Presidents have accepted Marshall’s ruling. President Monroe
received a subpoena to testify in a court-martial against one of his appointees. President Grant
submitted to a 3-hour deposition in the criminal prosecution of a political appointee embroiled in a
network of tax-evading whiskey distillers. President Ford made a videotaped deposition when an
subpoena was issued to him to testify in the defense of his attempted assassin. President Carter gave a
videotaped testimony to a federal grand jury investigating whether a fugitive financier had entreated the
White House to quash his extradition proceedings. President Clinton testified 3 times, twice via
deposition pursuant to subpoenas in federal criminal trials of associates implicated during the
Whitewater investigation. A Subpoena duces tecum directed Nixon to produce tape recordings of Oval
Office meetings.
(important part starts here) In short, Presidents are subject to subpoena when called for by criminal
proceedings in the federal level. But what is new in this case, is that the criminal proceeding (the grand
jury proceeding) was called upon by the State courts.
Trump basically argues that this subpoena is impermissibly burdensome for 3 reasons: diversion, stigma,
harassment. The SC rejected this.
Diversion means to distract a president from his public duties to the detriment of the President and his
office and also to the national he was designed to serve. Immunity based on diversion or distraction was
expressly rejected in Clinton v Jones wherein the court held that a properly tailored criminal subpoena
will not normally hamper the performance of the President’s constitutional duties.
Stigma from being made to comply with the subpoena will undermine a Presidents leadership at home
and abroad… The Court held that there is nothing stigmatizing about a President performing the citizen’s
normal duty of furnishing information relevant to a criminal investigation. Moreover, grand jury secrecy
rules aim to prevent the very stigma the President anticipates.
Harassment. The argument is that if the President complies with the subpoena it would generate a large
volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation. The SC said that yes there could be that
possibility but the risks of harassment are not serious because federal and state courts have tools to
deter and even dismiss vexatious actions. Grand juries are prohibited from engaging in arbitrary fishing
expeditions.
And more importantly, the Supremacy Clause prohibits state judges and prosecutors from interfering
with a President’s official duties. Therefore, any subpoena which would manipulate a President’s policy
decisions or to retaliate against a president for official acts would be unconstitutional.
Given these safeguards and Court’s precedents, absolute immunity is not necessary or appropriate.
2. W/N a state grand jury subpoena must satisfy a heightened need standard. No, for three reasons:
a. A heightened standard would extend protection designed for official documents to the President’s
private papers. In Burr, CJ Marshall said “if there be a paper in the possession of the executive, which is
not of an official nature, he must stand, as respects that paper, in nearly the same situation with any
other individual.”

b. Heightened protection against state subpoenas was not established. It was not shown that it is
necessary for the Executive to fulfill his functions. Trump’s only argument is that a heightened standard
is needed to protect him from “unwarranted burdens.” In effect, Trump argues that State subpoenas are
warranted only when the evidence is essential, while in Federal subpoenas are warranted whenever
evidence is material.

The SC said that this double standard has no basis in law. A state subpoena is not issued to manipulate,
the documents themselves are not protected, and nothing in the Constitution supports holding state
subpoenas to a higher standard than their federal counterparts.

c. In the absence of a need to protect the Executive, the public interest in law enforcement cuts in favor
of comprehensive access to evidence. To require the grand jury to meet a heightened standard of need
would hobble its ability to acquire all information that might possibly bear on its investigation. The state
would be deprived of investigative leads the evidence might yield.

But rejecting the heightened standard does not leave the President without protection.

The President may avail of the same protections like every other citizen such as the right to challenge the
subpoena on the grounds of bad faith and undue burden or breadth. The President can raise subpoena-
specific constitutional challenges in either state or federal forum.

NOTES:
Article II is “the power to perform them, without obstruction or impediment.
Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made
under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting
state laws. (Kaya the argument that Presidential Immunity is above other laws like those in criminal
proceedings)

RULING: We affirm the judgment of the CA and remand the case for further proceeding consistent with
this opinion.