Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 47

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–715 and 19–760 
_________________ 

19–715 

DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL. 

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

19–760 

DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, ET AL. 

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

[July 9, 2020]

 JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
JUSTICE THOMAS makes a valuable argument about the
constitutionality  of  congressional  subpoenas  for  a  Presi-
dent’s  personal  documents.    In  these  cases,  however,  I 
would assume for the sake of argument that such subpoe-
nas are not categorically barred.  Nevertheless, legislative
subpoenas for a President’s personal documents are inher-
ently suspicious.  Such documents are seldom of any special
value  in  considering  potential  legislation,  and  subpoenas 
for such documents can easily be used for improper non-leg-
islative purposes.  Accordingly, courts must be very sensi-
tive to separation of powers issues when they are asked to
approve the enforcement of such subpoenas.

In many cases, disputes about subpoenas for Presidential 
documents are fought without judicial involvement.  If Con-
gress attempts to obtain such documents by subpoenaing a
President directly, those two heavyweight institutions can