Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TRUMP v. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE 
COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. 

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

No. 19–635.  Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020 

In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office—acting on be-
half of a grand jury—served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, 
LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for 
financial  records  relating  to  the  President  and  his  businesses.    The 
President,  acting  in his  personal  capacity,  sued  the  district  attorney 
and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the sub-
poena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from 
state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause.  The 
District  Court  dismissed  the  case  under  the  abstention  doctrine  of 
Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and, in the alternative, held that the 
President was not entitled to injunctive relief.  The Second Circuit re-
jected  the  District  Court’s  dismissal  under  Younger  but  agreed  with 
the court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that presidential im-
munity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena and rejecting the ar-
gument of the United States as amicus curiae that a state grand jury 
subpoena  seeking  the  President’s  documents  must  satisfy  a  height-
ened showing of need.    

Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, 
or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal 
subpoena to a sitting President.  Pp. 3–22. 

(a) In 1807, John Marshall, presiding as Circuit Justice for Virginia 
over the treason trial of Aaron Burr, granted Burr’s motion for a sub-
poena  duces  tecum  directed  at  President  Jefferson.    In  rejecting  the 
prosecution’s argument that a President was not subject to such a sub-
poena, Marshall held that a President does not “stand exempt” from 
the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that the accused have compulsory 
process  for  obtaining  witnesses  for  their  defense.    United  States  v.