Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 25

20 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

Opinion of the Court 

substantial the evidence of Congress’s legislative purpose, 
the better.  See Watkins, 354 U. S., at 201, 205 (preferring
such evidence over “vague” and “loosely worded” evidence 
of Congress’s purpose).  That is particularly true when Con-
gress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive consti-
tutional  issues,  such  as  legislation  concerning  the  Presi-
dency.  In such cases, it is “impossible” to conclude that a
subpoena is designed to advance a valid legislative purpose
unless Congress adequately identifies its aims and explains
why the President’s information will advance its considera-
tion of the possible legislation.  Id., at 205–206, 214–215. 

Fourth, courts should be careful to assess the burdens im-
posed on the President by a subpoena.  We have held that 
burdens  on  the  President’s  time  and  attention  stemming
from judicial process and litigation, without more, generally 
do not cross constitutional lines.  See Vance, ante, at 12–14; 
Clinton, 520 U. S., at 704–705.  But burdens imposed by a
congressional subpoena should be carefully scrutinized, for 
they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing 
relationship with the President and incentives to use sub-
poenas for institutional advantage.

Other considerations may be pertinent as well; one case 
every two centuries does not afford enough experience for 
an exhaustive list. 

When Congress seeks information “needed for intelligent 
legislative action,” it “unquestionably” remains “the duty of 
all citizens to cooperate.”  Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (em-
phasis  added).  Congressional  subpoenas  for  information
from the President, however, implicate special concerns re-
garding the separation of powers.  The courts below did not 
take adequate account of those concerns.  The judgments of 
the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second 
Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.