Can a state court issue a criminal subpoena to a sitting U.S. President without violating Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

The New York County District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., issued a grand jury subpoena to Mazars USA, LLP, President Donald J. Trump's personal accounting firm. The subpoena sought nearly a decade of the President's personal financial records, including tax returns, as part of a criminal investigation into potential state law violations involving business transactions of multiple individuals.

President Trump, in his personal capacity, filed a lawsuit to prevent the enforcement of the subpoena. He argued that, under Article II and the Supremacy Clause, he possessed absolute immunity from state criminal processes. This legal challenge aimed to block the release of the requested financial documents to the grand jury.

Trump filed suit in Federal District Court seeking to enjoin enforcement of a subpoena. The District Court dismissed the case, citing Younger abstention, and alternatively ruled against granting injunctive relief to the President. Trump appealed to the Second Circuit, which overturned the dismissal based on Younger but upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction. Trump then petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address the question of presidential immunity from state criminal subpoenas.

(Roberts, J.)

Yes. A state court can issue a criminal subpoena to a sitting U.S. President without violating Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The President does not possess absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas. Two centuries of precedent, dating back to United States v. Burr, establish that Presidents are subject to subpoenas in criminal proceedings. The argument for a heightened need standard for subpoenas targeting a President's personal papers is unwarranted, as such documents do not require the same level of protection as official records. The fundamental principle that no person is above the law applies equally to the President. The public's right to evidence, a cornerstone of the justice system, extends to evidence in the President's possession. While courts must exercise particular care when assessing subpoenas for a President's personal records, this does not amount to a categorical bar or a requirement for an elevated standard. The Constitution does not shield the President from ordinary criminal process. State courts retain their authority to issue subpoenas in criminal matters, regardless of the office held by the recipient. This authority stems from the basic tenets of federalism and the separation of powers, which do not grant the President blanket immunity from state criminal proceedings. The President's unique position in the constitutional structure does not exempt him from compliance with valid criminal subpoenas issued by state courts.

Concurrence (Kavanaugh, J.) The Nixon 'demonstrated, specific need' standard should apply to this case. While agreeing with the majority's conclusions, this heightened standard is necessary when subpoenaing a sitting President's records. This approach balances the needs of the criminal justice system with the unique position of the President, ensuring that such subpoenas are not used frivolously or for political purposes.

Dissent (Thomas, J.) The President does not have absolute immunity from the issuance of subpoenas. However, he may be entitled to relief against enforcement if he can demonstrate that his duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects. This approach recognizes the unique constitutional role of the President while still maintaining the principle that no one is above the law. It provides a more nuanced standard that accounts for the President's responsibilities.

Dissent (Alito, J.) The Court's decision provides insufficient protection for the Presidency. A state prosecutor should be required to meet a heightened standard before enforcing a subpoena for a President's personal records. This heightened standard is necessary to prevent undue interference with the President's duties and to protect the office from potential harassment or politically motivated investigations. The majority's approach fails to adequately safeguard the unique constitutional position of the President.