Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

18 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

Opinion of the Court 

any  other  source”  and  is  needed  “now,  rather  than  at  the
end  of  the  President’s  term.”    Brief  for  United  States  as 
Amicus Curiae 29, 32 (internal quotation marks and alter-
ation omitted).  JUSTICE ALITO, largely embracing those cri-
teria, agrees that a state criminal subpoena to a President 
“should  not  be  allowed  unless  a  heightened  standard  is
met.”  Post,  at  16–18  (asking  whether  the  information  is
“critical” and “necessary . . . now”).

We disagree, for three reasons.  First, such a heightened 
standard would extend protection designed for official doc-
uments to the President’s private papers.  As the Solicitor 
General  and  JUSTICE  ALITO  acknowledge,  their  proposed
test  is  derived  from  executive  privilege  cases  that  trace 
back to Burr.  Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26– 
28; post, at 17.  There, Marshall explained that if Jefferson
invoked  presidential  privilege  over  executive  communica-
tions, the court would not “proceed against the president as 
against an ordinary individual” but would instead require
an affidavit from the defense that “would clearly show the
paper to be essential to the justice of the case.”  Burr, 25 
F. Cas., at 192.  The Solicitor General and JUSTICE ALITO 
would have us apply a similar standard to a President’s per-
sonal papers.  But this argument does not account for the 
relevant passage from Burr: “If there be a paper in the pos-
session of the executive, which is not of an official nature, 
he must stand, as respects that paper, in nearly the same 
situation with any other individual.”  Id., at 191 (emphasis
added).  And  it  is  only  “nearly”—and  not  “entirely”—be-
cause the President retains the right to assert privilege over
documents  that,  while  ostensibly  private,  “partake  of  the 
character of an official paper.”  Id., at 191–192. 

Second, neither the Solicitor General nor JUSTICE ALITO 
has  established  that  heightened  protection  against  state 
subpoenas is necessary for the Executive to fulfill his Arti-
cle II functions.  Beyond the risk of harassment, which we
addressed  above,  the  only  justification  they  offer  for  the