Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

and  the  global  movement  of  illicit  funds  through  the  real 
estate market.  Id., at 656–659.   Rejecting  the contention
that the subpoenas improperly targeted the President, the
court explained in part that the President’s financial deal-
ings  with  Deutsche  Bank  made  it  “appropriate”  for  the
House to use him as a “case study” to determine “whether 
new legislation is needed.”  Id., at 662–663, n. 67.1 

Judge Livingston dissented, seeing no “clear reason why
a  congressional  investigation  aimed  generally  at  closing 
regulatory loopholes in the banking system need focus on 
over a decade of financial information regarding this Presi-
dent, his family, and his business affairs.”  Id., at 687. 

We granted certiorari in both cases and stayed the judg-

ments below pending our decision.  589 U. S. ___ (2019). 

II 
A 
The question presented is whether the subpoenas exceed
the authority of the House under the Constitution.  Histor-
ically, disputes over congressional demands for presidential 
documents have not ended up in court.  Instead, they have
been  hashed  out  in  the  “hurly-burly,  the  give-and-take  of 
the political process between the legislative and the execu-
tive.”  Hearings on S. 2170 et al. before the Subcommittee 
on  Intergovernmental  Relations  of  the  Senate  Committee 
on Government Operations, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 87 (1975) 
(A.  Scalia,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Office  of  Legal
Counsel).

That  practice  began  with  George  Washington  and  the 

—————— 

1 The  Court  of  Appeals  directed  a  “limited”  remand  for  the  District
Court to consider whether it was necessary to disclose certain “sensitive
personal details” (such as documents reflecting medical services received
by employees of the Trump business entities) and a “few” documents that
might not relate to the committees’ legislative purposes.  943 F. 3d 627, 
667–668, 675 (2019).  The Court of Appeals ordered that all other docu-
ments be “promptly transmitted” to the committees.  Id., at 669.