Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

heightened standard is protecting Presidents from “unwar-
ranted burdens.”  Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 
28; see post, at 16 (asking whether “there is an urgent and 
critical  need  for  the  subpoenaed  information”).    In  effect, 
they argue that even if federal subpoenas to a President are 
warranted whenever evidence is material, state subpoenas 
are warranted “only when [the] evidence is essential.”  Brief 
for United States as Amicus Curiae 28; see post, at 16.  But 
that double standard has no basis in law.  For if the state 
subpoena is not issued to manipulate, supra, at 16–17, the 
documents themselves are not protected, supra, at 18, and 
the Executive is not impaired, supra, at 12–15, then noth-
ing in Article II or the Supremacy Clause supports holding 
state  subpoenas  to  a  higher  standard  than  their  federal 
counterparts. 

Finally, in the absence of a need to protect the Executive,
the  public  interest  in  fair  and  effective  law  enforcement 
cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence.  Requir-
ing  a  state  grand  jury  to  meet  a  heightened  standard  of
need  would  hobble  the  grand  jury’s  ability  to  acquire  “all
information that might possibly bear on its investigation.” 
R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U. S., at 297.  And, even assuming
the evidence withheld under that standard were preserved 
until the conclusion of a President’s term, in the interim the 
State would be deprived of investigative leads that the evi-
dence  might  yield,  allowing  memories  to  fade  and  docu-
ments to disappear.  This could frustrate the identification, 
investigation, and indictment of third parties (for whom ap-
plicable  statutes  of  limitations  might  lapse).  More  trou-
bling, it could prejudice the innocent by depriving the grand 
jury of exculpatory evidence. 

Rejecting  a  heightened  need  standard  does  not  leave 
Presidents with “no real protection.”  Post, at 19 (opinion of 
ALITO, J.).  To start, a President may avail himself of the
same protections available to every other citizen.  These in-
clude the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds