Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

First, courts should carefully assess whether the asserted 
legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involv-
ing the President and his papers.  “ ‘[O]ccasion[s] for consti-
tutional confrontation between the two branches’ should be 
avoided whenever possible.”  Cheney v. United States Dist. 
Court  for  D. C.,  542  U. S.  367,  389–390  (2004)  (quoting 
Nixon,  418  U. S.,  at  692).    Congress  may  not  rely  on  the
President’s  information  if  other  sources  could  reasonably 
provide Congress the information it needs in light of its par-
ticular legislative objective.  The President’s unique consti-
tutional position means that Congress may not look to him 
as a “case study” for general legislation.  Cf. 943 F. 3d, at 
662–663, n. 67. 

Unlike in criminal proceedings, where “[t]he very integ-
rity  of  the  judicial  system”  would  be  undermined  without
“full  disclosure  of  all  the  facts,”  Nixon,  418  U.  S.,  at  709, 
efforts  to  craft  legislation  involve  predictive  policy  judg-
ments that are “not hamper[ed] . . . in quite the same way”
when  every  scrap  of  potentially  relevant  evidence  is  not 
available, Cheney, 542 U. S., at 384; see Senate Select Com-
mittee,  498  F.  2d,  at  732.  While  we  certainly  recognize
Congress’s  important  interests  in  obtaining  information 
through appropriate inquiries, those interests are not suffi-
ciently powerful to justify access to the President’s personal
papers when other sources could provide Congress the in-
formation it needs. 

Second, to narrow the scope of possible conflict between 
the branches, courts should insist on a subpoena no broader 
than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative
objective.  The specificity of the subpoena’s request “serves 
as  an  important  safeguard  against  unnecessary  intrusion 
into the operation of the Office of the President.”  Cheney, 
542 U. S., at 387. 

Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the ev-
idence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena ad-
vances a valid legislative purpose.  The more detailed and