Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

20 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

grand jury secrecy vary and often do not set out disclosure 
restrictions with the same specificity as federal law.14 

Under  New  York  law,  the  decision  whether  to  disclose 
grand  jury  evidence  is  committed  to  the  discretion  of  the 
supervising  judge  under  a  test  that  simply  balances  the
need for secrecy against “the public interest.”  In re District 
Attorney of Suffolk Cty., 58 N. Y. 2d 436, 444, 448 N. E. 2d 
440, 443–444 (1983); see also People v. Fetcho, 91 N. Y. 2d 
765, 769, 698 N. E. 2d 935, 938 (1998).  That test provides 
no solid protection for the Presidency.  Reported New York 
decisions do not deal with whether this test restricts disclo-
sure to, among others, a congressional committee, the state
legislature, or the state attorney general and her staff for 
the purpose of civil litigation.  Indeed, since New York leg-
islators have attempted to enact laws to force the disclosure 
of some of the subpoenaed information, it is not impossible 
to imagine a trial judge’s finding that public disclosure is in 
the  “public  interest.”  And  even  where  grand  jury  infor-
mation  is  not  lawfully  disclosed,  confidential  law  enforce-
ment information is avidly sought by the media in high-pro-
file cases, leaks of such information are not uncommon, and 
those responsible are seldom called to account. 

The  Court  notes  that  “grand  juries  are  prohibited  from 
engaging” in “ ‘fishing expeditions,’ ” ante, at 17, but an ob-
jection on that ground is a very long shot under New York
law.  In New York, a grand jury subpoena need not be sup-
ported  by  probable  cause,  In re  Nassau  Cty.  Grand  Jury 
Subpoena  Duces  Tecum  Dated  June  24,  2003,  4  N. Y.  3d 
665, 677–678, 830 N. E. 2d 1118, 1126 (2005), and a party 
seeking to quash a subpoena must show that the documents
sought “can have no conceivable relevance to any legitimate
object  of  investigation.”    In  re  Grand  Jury  Subpoenas  for 
Locals 17, 135, and 608, 72 N. Y. 2d 307, 317, 528 N. E. 2d 
1195, 1201 (1988) (quoting Virag v. Hynes, 54 N. Y. 2d 437, 

—————— 

14 S. Beale et al., Grand Jury Law and Practice §§5:3–5:4 (2018).