Term: 2019
Docket: 19-635
Trump v. Vance
- Pro
19-635 TRUMP V. VANCE DECISION BELOW: 2019 WL 5687447 THIS CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE MARCH 2020 ARGUMENT SESSION. PRESS RELEASE OF MARCH 16, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH PRECAUTIONS RECOMMENDED IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE SUPREME COURT IS POSTPONING THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE MARCH SESSION. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 13, 2020 RESCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. THE JUSTICES AND COUNSEL WILL ALL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. CERT. GRANTED 12/13/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: The District Attorney for the County of New York is conducting a criminal investigation that, by his own admission, targets the President of the United States for possible indictment and prosecution during his term in office. As part of that investigation, he served a grand-jury subpoena on a custodian of the President's personal records, demanding production of nearly ten years' worth of the President's financial papers and his tax returns. That subpoena is the combination-almost a word- for-word copy-of two subpoenas issued by committees of Congress for these same papers. The Second Circuit rejected the President's claim of immunity and ordered compliance with the subpoena. The question presented is: Whether this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-3204
The case of Trump v. Vance, 2019 revolved around the issue of whether a sitting President could be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., subpoenaed President Donald Trump's accounting firm for his tax returns as part of an investigation into hush money payments made during the 2016 election campaign. The president’s lawyers argued that he had absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution while in office. However, on July 9, 2020, in a landmark ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected this claim stating no citizen is above providing evidence when subpoenaed in a criminal proceeding including the president; thus allowing access to Trump's financial records for New York prosecutors but blocking Congress from obtaining similar information at least temporarily.
In the case of Trump v. Vance, there were no dissenting opinions recorded as the decision was 7-2 in favor of allowing Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.'s subpoena for President Donald Trump's financial records to proceed. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part but did not fully oppose the majority opinion led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Both justices argued that more consideration should be given to the president’s unique position and responsibilities before enforcing a state criminal subpoena against him while he is still in office, with Alito expressing concern about potential harassment of presidents through local prosecutors' use of subpoenas.
