Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

branches of government over records of intense political in-
terest  for  all  involved.  Rumely,  345  U. S.,  at  44  (quoting 
Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 37 (1922) (Taft, C. J.)). 
The interbranch conflict here does not vanish simply be-
cause  the  subpoenas  seek  personal  papers  or  because  the 
President sued in his personal capacity.  The President is 
the  only  person  who  alone  composes  a  branch  of  govern-
ment.  As a result, there is not always a clear line between
his personal and official affairs.  “The interest of the man” 
is  often  “connected  with  the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
place.”  The Federalist No. 51, at 349.  Given the close con-
nection  between  the  Office  of  the  President  and  its  occu-
pant, congressional demands for the President’s papers can
implicate the relationship between the branches regardless 
whether those papers are personal or official.  Either way,
a demand may aim to harass the President or render him
“complaisan[t] to the humors of the Legislature.”  Id., No. 
71, at 483.  In fact, a subpoena for personal papers may pose
a heightened risk of such impermissible purposes, precisely 
because  of  the  documents’  personal  nature  and  their  less
evident connection to a legislative task.  No one can say that
the controversy here is less significant to the relationship
between the branches simply because it involves personal 
papers.  Quite the opposite.  That appears to be what makes
the matter of such great consequence to the President and
Congress.

In addition, separation of powers concerns are no less pal-
pable  here  simply  because  the  subpoenas  were  issued  to
third  parties.    Congressional  demands  for  the  President’s
information  present  an  interbranch  conflict  no  matter 
where  the  information  is  held—it  is,  after  all,  the  Presi-
dent’s information.  Were it otherwise, Congress could side-
step constitutional requirements any time a President’s in-
formation  is  entrusted  to  a  third  party—as  occurs  with 
rapidly  increasing  frequency.  Cf.  Carpenter  v.  United 
States,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___,  ___  (2018)  (slip  op.,  at  15,  17).