Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 57

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

13 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

It is not enough to recite sayings like “no man is above 
the  law”  and  “the  public  has  a  right  to  every  man’s  evi-
dence.”  Ante,  at  1.
  These  sayings  are  true—and
important—but  they  beg  the  question.    The  law  applies 
equally to all persons, including a person who happens for 
a period of time to occupy the Presidency.  But there is no 
question that the nature of the office demands in some in-
stances that the application of laws be adjusted at least un-
til the person’s term in office ends. 

C 
I now come to the specific investigative weapon at issue
in the case before us—a subpoena for a sitting President’s 
records.  This  weapon  is  less  intrusive  in  an  immediate
sense than those mentioned above.  Since the records are 
held by, and the subpoena was issued to, a third party, com-
pliance  would  not  require  much  work  on  the  President’s 
part.  And after all, this is just one subpoena. 

But  we  should  heed  the  “great  jurist,”  ante,  at  21,  who 
rejected a similar argument in McCulloch.  If we say that a 
subpoena  to  a  third  party  is  insufficient  to  undermine  a
President’s  performance  of  his  duties,  what  about  a  sub-
poena served on the President himself?  Surely in that case,
the President could turn over the work of gathering the re-
quested documents to attorneys or others recruited to per-
form  the  task.  And  if  one  subpoena  is  permitted,  what 
about  two?  Or  three?  Or  ten?  Drawing  a  line  based  on 
such factors would involve the same sort of “perplexing in-
quiry,  so  unfit  for  the  judicial  department”  that  Marshall 
rejected in McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 430. 

The  Court  faced  a  similar  issue  when  it  considered 
whether a President can be sued for an allegedly unlawful
act  committed  in  the  performance  of  official  duties.    See 
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982).  We did not ask 
whether the particular suit before us would have interfered
with the carrying out of Presidential duties.  (It could not