Trump v. Vance

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Trump v. Vance
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: May 12, 2020
Decided: July 9, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Concurring
Brett Kavanaugh • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito


Trump v. Vance is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on May 12, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.[1]

Oral argument was initially scheduled for March 31, 2020. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 16 that it was postponing the 11 oral arguments originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."[2] COVID-19 was the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2. On April 15, the court announced it had rescheduled the case for May 12, 2020.

  • Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Click here for more information about political responses to the pandemic.

The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 7-2 ruling, holding that Article II of the United States Constitution and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.[3] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2019, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance (D) opened an investigation into President Donald Trump's (R) business dealings. Vance issued a grand-jury subpoena to the president's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP ("Mazars"), demanding production of nearly 10 years' worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns. The president challenged the subpoena in federal district court, arguing the subpoena violated presidential immunity. The district court dismissed the president's complaint. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part and affirmed in part the district court's decision. The president appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.[4]
  • The issue: Whether this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.[5]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 7-2 opinion, holding that Article II of the United States Constitution and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • February 22, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the release of Trump's tax returns to New York prosecutors.[6]
    • July 9, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • May 12, 2020: Oral argument
    • March 16, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March sitting. Oral arguments in this case were initially scheduled for March 31, 2020.
    • December 13, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • November 14, 2019: President Donald Trump (R), the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 4, 2019: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling.

    Background

    In 2019, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance (D) opened an investigation into President Donald Trump's (R) business dealings. In August, Vance served a grand jury subpoena on the Trump Organization. The Trump Organization disputed the subpoena's scope. Vance then issued a subpoena to the president's accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP ("Mazars"), asking for personal records, including tax returns.[4]

    On September 19, 2019, the president filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Below is a brief timeline of the litigation.

    • September 19, 2019: President Trump filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York, arguing the Mazars subpoena violated "the temporary immunity a sitting President holds under Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution." He asked the court to issue an emergency injunction to stay the subpoena.[4]
    • October 7, 2019: The Southern District of New York denied the president's immunity claim and dismissed the complaint. The president filed a notice of appeal and an emergency motion to stay the subpoena in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The 2nd Circuit granted the motion, staying the subpoena.[4]
    • November 4, 2019: The 2nd Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the president's complaint, affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings.[4]

    Article II and the Supremacy Clause

    Article II

    See also: Article II, United States Constitution

    Article II of the United States Constitution details the executive branch of the government. Section 1 begins, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

    Supremacy Clause

    See also: Article VI, United States Constitution

    Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause. Based on the clause, the U.S. Constitution and federal law take precedence over state constitutions and laws.[7]

    The paragraph reads:

    “ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[8] ”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.[5]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 opinion, the court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that Article II of the United States Constitution and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion.[3]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[3]

    “ ... Here we are confronted for the first time with a subpoena issued to the President by a local grand jury operating under the supervision of a state court.


    In the President's view, that distinction makes all the difference. He argues that the Supremacy Clause gives a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with those subpoenas would categorically impair a President's performance of his Article II functions. The Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the United States, agrees with much of the President's reasoning but does not commit to his bottom line. Instead, the Solicitor General urges us to resolve this case by holding that a state grand jury subpoena for a sitting President's personal records must, at the very least, "satisfy a heightened standard of need," which the Solicitor General contends was not met here. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 26, 29.

    ... Marshall's ruling in Burr, entrenched by 200 years of practice and our decision in Nixon, confirms that federal criminal subpoenas do not "rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive's ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions." Clinton, 520 U.S., at 702–703. But the President, joined in part by the Solicitor General, argues that state criminal subpoenas pose a unique threat of impairment and thus demand greater protection. To be clear, the President does not contend here that this subpoena, in particular, is impermissibly burdensome. Instead he makes a categorical argument about the burdens generally associated with state criminal subpoenas, focusing on three: diversion, stigma, and harassment. ...

    ... Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need. The "guard[] furnished to this high officer" lies where it always has–in "the conduct of a court" applying established legal and constitutional principles to individual subpoenas in a manner that preserves both the independence of the Executive and the integrity of the criminal justice system. Burr, 25 F. Cas., at 34.

    The arguments presented here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate. 941 F. 3d, at 646, n. 19.6

    We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[8]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.[3]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:

    “ The Court today unanimously concludes that a President does not possess absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena, but also unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate. See ante, at 21–22, and n. 6; post, at 11–12 (Thomas, J., dissenting); post, at 16–19 (Alito, J., dissenting). I agree with those two conclusions.


    ... Because this case again entails a clash between the interests of the criminal process and the Article II interests of the Presidency, I would apply the longstanding Nixon "demonstrated, specific need" standard to this case. The majority opinion does not apply the Nixon standard in this distinct Article II context, as I would have done. That said, the majority opinion appropriately takes account of some important concerns that also animate Nixon and the Constitution's balance of powers. The majority opinion explains that a state prosecutor may not issue a subpoena for a President's personal information out of bad faith, malice, or an intent to harass a President, ante, at 16; as a result of prosecutorial impropriety, ibid.; to see information that is not relevant to an investigation, ante, at 16, 19–20; that is overly broad or unduly burdensome, ante, at 19–20; to manipulate, influence, or retaliate against a President's official acts or policy decisions, ante at 17, 20; or in a way that would impede, conflict with, or interfere with a President's official duties, ante, at 20–21. All nine Members of the Court agree, moreover, that a President may raise objections to a state criminal subpoena not just in state court but also in federal court. And the majority opinion states that, in light of the "high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive," courts "should be particularly meticulous" in assessing a subpoena for a President’s personal records. Ante, at 20 (quoting Clinton, 520 U.S., at 707, and Nixon, 418 U.S., at 702).

    In the end, much may depend on how the majority opinion's various standards are applied in future years and decades. It will take future cases to determine precisely how much difference exists between (i) the various standards articulated by the majority opinion, (ii) the overarching Nixon “demonstrated, specific need" standard that I would adopt, and (iii) Justice Thomas's and Justice Alito's other proposed standards. In any event, in my view, lower courts in cases of this sort involving a President will almost invariably have to begin by delving into why the State wants the information; why and how much the State needs the information, including whether the State could obtain the information elsewhere; and whether compliance with the subpoena would unduly burden or interfere with a President's official duties.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.[3]

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[3]

    “ I agree with the majority that the President has no absolute immunity from the issuance of this subpoena. The President also sought relief from enforcement of the subpoena, however, and he asked this court to allow further proceedings on that question if we rejected his claim of absolute immunity. The Court inexplicably fails to address this request, although its decision leaves the President free to renew his request for an injunction against enforcement immediately on remand.


    I would vacate and remand to allow the District Court to determine whether enforcement of this subpoena should be enjoined because the President's "duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects." Id., at 34. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Justice Alito

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion.[3]

    In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote:[3]

    “ The subpoena at issue here is unprecedented. Never before has a local prosecutor subpoenaed the records of a sitting President. The Court's decision threatens to impair the functioning of the Presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the Nation's 2,300+ local prosecutors. Respect for the structure of Government created by the Constitution demands greater protection for an institution that is vital to the Nation's safety and well-being.


    I therefore respectfully dissent.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Trump v. Vance," accessed December 17, 2019
    2. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from March 16, 2020," accessed March 16, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Supreme Court of the United States, Trump v. Vance, decided July 9, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari: Trump v. Vance," accessed December 17, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: Trump v. Vance," accessed December 17, 2019
    6. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021," February 22, 2021
    7. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Supremacy Clause," accessed December 17, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed May 18, 2020
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Trump_v._Vance&oldid=9117244"