Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–635 
_________________ 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. CYRUS R. VANCE, 
JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[July 9, 2020]

 JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH 

joins, concurring in the judgment. 

The Court today unanimously concludes that a President 
does not possess absolute immunity from a state criminal 
subpoena,  but  also  unanimously  agrees  that  this  case
should be remanded to the District Court, where the Presi-
dent  may  raise  constitutional  and  legal  objections  to  the 
subpoena as appropriate.  See ante, at 21–22, and n. 6; post, 
at 11–12 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); post, at 16–19 (ALITO, J., 
dissenting).  I agree with those two conclusions. 

* 

* 

* 
The dispute over this grand jury subpoena reflects a con-
flict between a State’s interest in criminal investigation and 
a President’s Article II interest in performing his or her du-
ties  without  undue  interference.    Although  this  case  in-
volves personal information of the President and is there-
fore  not  an  executive  privilege  case,  the  majority  opinion 
correctly concludes based on precedent that Article II and
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution supply some pro-
tection for the Presidency against state criminal subpoenas 
of this sort. 

In  our  system  of  government,  as  this  Court  has  often
stated, no one is above the law.  That principle applies, of