Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

Supremacy  Clause  prohibits  state  judges  and  prosecutors
from interfering with a President’s official duties.  See, e.g., 
Tennessee  v.  Davis,  100  U. S.  257,  263  (1880)  (“No  State 
government can . . . obstruct [the] authorized officers” of the 
Federal  Government.).  Any  effort  to  manipulate  a  Presi-
dent’s policy decisions or to “retaliat[e]” against a President 
for  official  acts  through  issuance  of  a  subpoena,  Brief  for 
Respondent  Vance  15,  43,  would  thus  be  an  unconstitu-
tional attempt to “influence” a superior sovereign “exempt”
from such obstacles, see McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 427.  We 
generally “assume[ ] that state courts and prosecutors will 
observe constitutional limitations.”  Dombrowski v. Pfister, 
380 U. S. 479, 484 (1965).  Failing that, federal law allows
a President to challenge any allegedly unconstitutional in-
fluence in a federal forum, as the President has done here. 
See 42 U. S. C. §1983; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 155– 
156 (1908) (holding that federal courts may enjoin state of-
ficials to conform their conduct to federal law). 

Given  these  safeguards  and  the  Court’s  precedents,  we
cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or ap-
propriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause.  Our 
dissenting colleagues agree.  JUSTICE THOMAS reaches the 
same conclusion based on the original understanding of the 
Constitution reflected in Marshall’s decision in Burr.  Post, 
at  2,  5–6.  And  JUSTICE  ALITO,  also  persuaded  by  Burr, 
“agree[s]” that “not all” state criminal subpoenas for a Pres-
ident’s  records  “should  be  barred.”    Post,  at  16.  On  that 
point the Court is unanimous. 

B 
We  next  consider  whether  a  state  grand  jury  subpoena
seeking a President’s private papers must satisfy a height-
ened need standard.  The Solicitor General would require a 
threshold showing that the evidence sought is “critical” for 
“specific  charging  decisions”  and  that  the  subpoena  is  a 
“last  resort,”  meaning  the  evidence  is  “not  available  from