Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

2 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

Opinion of the Court 

I 
In the summer of 2018, the New York County District At-
torney’s  Office  opened  an  investigation  into  what  it 
opaquely describes as “business transactions involving mul-
tiple  individuals  whose  conduct  may  have  violated  state
law.”  Brief for Respondent Vance 2.  A year later, the of-
fice—acting on behalf of a grand jury—served a subpoena 
duces tecum (essentially a request to produce evidence) on 
Mazars  USA,  LLP,  the  personal  accounting  firm  of  Presi-
dent Donald J. Trump.  The subpoena directed Mazars to 
produce  financial  records  relating  to  the  President  and
business organizations affiliated with him, including “[t]ax 
returns and related schedules,” from “2011 to the present.” 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 119a.2 

The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the
district  attorney  and  Mazars  in  Federal  District  Court  to
enjoin enforcement of the subpoena.  He argued that, under 
Article  II  and  the  Supremacy  Clause,  a  sitting  President 
enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process.  He 
asked the court to issue a “declaratory judgment that the 
subpoena is invalid and unenforceable while the President 
is in office” and to permanently enjoin the district attorney 
“from taking any action to enforce the subpoena.”  Amended 
Complaint in No. 1:19–cv–8694 (SDNY, Sept. 25, 2019), p.
19.  Mazars, concluding that the dispute was between the 
President and the district attorney, took no position on the 
legal issues raised by the President. 

The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction
and  dismissed  the  case  based  on  Younger  v.  Harris,  401 
U. S.  37  (1971),  which  generally  precludes  federal  courts
from  intervening  in  ongoing  state  criminal  prosecutions. 
—————— 

2 The  grand  jury  subpoena  essentially  copied  a  subpoena  issued  to
Mazars in April 2019 by the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the
U. S.  House  of  Representatives,  which  is  at  issue  in  Trump  v.  Mazars 
USA, LLP, post, p. ___.  The principal difference is that the instant sub-
poena expressly requests tax returns.