Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–635 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. CYRUS R. VANCE, 
JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[July 9, 2020]

 CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 

Court. 

In  our  judicial  system,  “the  public  has  a  right  to  every
man’s evidence.”1  Since the earliest days of the Republic, 
“every  man”  has  included  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through
Clinton,  Presidents  have  uniformly  testified  or  produced
documents  in  criminal  proceedings  when  called  upon  by 
federal  courts.  This  case  involves—so  far  as  we  and  the 
parties can tell—the first state criminal subpoena directed 
to a President.  The President contends that the subpoena 
is unenforceable.  We granted certiorari to decide whether 
Article II and the Supremacy Clause categorically preclude, 
or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state 
criminal subpoena to a sitting President. 

—————— 

1 This maxim traces at least as far back as Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, 
in a 1742 parliamentary debate.  See 12 Parliamentary History of Eng-
land 693 (1812).