Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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 ALITO, dissenting. 
This case is almost certain to be portrayed as a case about
the  current  President  and  the  current  political  situation,
but the case has a much deeper significance.  While the de-
cision will of course have a direct effect on President Trump,
what the Court holds today will also affect all future Presi-
dents—which  is  to  say,  it  will  affect  the  Presidency,  and 
that is a matter of great and lasting importance to the Na-
tion. 

The  event  that  precipitated  this  case  is  unprecedented.
Respondent Vance, an elected state prosecutor, launched a
criminal investigation of a sitting President and obtained a 
grand jury subpoena for his records.  The specific question 
before us—whether the subpoena may be enforced—cannot 
be  answered  adequately  without  considering  the  broader 
question that frames it: whether the Constitution imposes 
restrictions on a State’s deployment of its criminal law en-
forcement powers against a sitting President.  If the Con-
stitution  sets  no  such  limits,  then  a  local  prosecutor  may 
prosecute a sitting President.  And if that is allowed, it fol-
lows a fortiori that the subpoena at issue can be enforced.
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Constitution  does  not  permit  a 
State to prosecute a sitting President, the next logical ques-