Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 65

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

21 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

444, 430 N. E. 2d 1249, 1253 (1981)).

The Court says that a President can “argue that compli-
ance with a particular subpoena would impede his consti-
tutional  duties,”  ante,  at  20  (emphasis  added),  but  under
the Court’s opinions in this case and Mazars, it is not easy
to  see  how  such  an  argument  could  prevail.    The  Court 
makes clear that any stigma or damage to a President’s rep-
utation does not count, ante, at 14, and in Mazars, the Court 
states that “burdens on the President’s time and attention” 
are  generally  not  of  constitutional  concern,  post,  at  20. 
Elsewhere in its opinion in this case, the Court takes the 
position  that  when  a  President’s  non-official  records  are
subpoenaed,  his  treatment  should  be  little  different  from 
that of any other subpoena recipient.  Ante, at 18.  The most 
that the Court holds out is the possibility that there might 
be  some  unspecified  extraordinary  circumstances  under 
which a President might obtain relief. 

Finally, the Court touts the ability of a President to chal-
lenge a subpoena by “ ‘an affirmative showing of impropri-
ety,’  including  ‘bad  faith’ ”  or  retaliation  for  official  acts. 
Ante, at 16–17.  But “such objections are almost universally 
overruled.”  S.  Beale  et al.,  Grand  Jury  Law  and  Practice
§6:23,  p.  6–243  (2014).    Direct  evidence  of  impropriety  is 
rarely obtainable, and it will be a challenge to make a cir-
cumstantial case unless the prosecutor is required to pro-
vide the sort of showing outlined above.

For all practical purposes, the Court’s  decision places a
sitting  President  in  the  same  unenviable  position  as  any 
other person whose records are subpoenaed by a grand jury.
See ante, at 18. 

Attempting to justify this approach, the Court relies on 
Marshall’s  ruling  in  the  Burr  trial,  but  the  Court  ignores
important  differences  between  the  situation  in  that  case 
and the situation here.  First, the subpoena in Burr was not 
issued by a grand jury at the behest of a prosecutor who was 
investigating the President.  Instead, a defendant who was