Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 60

16 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

opposed a proposal to vest the impeachment power in state 
legislatures, contending that this “would open a door for in-
trigues  agst.  [the  President]  in  States  where  his  admin-
istration  tho’  just  might  be  unpopular,  and  might  tempt
him to pay court to particular States whose leading parti-
zans he might fear.”  Id., at 86.  And to prevent a State from 
compromising a President’s independence, the Convention
adopted a provision barring a President from receiving an 
“Emolument” from any State, U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 7.
See  The  Federalist  No.  73,  at  494  (J.  Cooke  ed.  1961)  (A.
Hamilton).

Two  centuries  later,  the  Court’s  decision  in  Clinton  re-
flected  a  similar  concern.  The  Court  held  that  a  sitting
President could be sued in federal court, but the Court took 
pains to reserve judgment on the question whether “a com-
parable claim might succeed in a state tribunal.”  520 U. S., 
at 691.  “[A]ny direct control by a state court over the Pres-
ident,” the Court observed, might raise concerns about “pro-
tecting federal officials from possible local prejudice.”  Ibid., 
and n. 13. 

D 

In light of the above, a subpoena like the one now before 
us should not be enforced unless it meets a test that takes 
into account the need to prevent interference with a Presi-
dent’s discharge of the responsibilities of the office.  I agree 
with  the  Court  that  not  all  such  subpoenas  should  be
barred.  There may be situations in which there is an urgent 
and critical need for the subpoenaed information.  The sit-
uation in the Burr trial, where the documents at issue were 
sought by a criminal defendant to defend against a charge
of treason, is a good example.  But in a case like the one at 
hand,  a  subpoena  should  not  be  allowed  unless  a  height-
ened standard is met. 

Prior cases involving Presidential subpoenas have always
applied  special,  heightened  standards.  In  the  Burr  trial,