Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

16 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

Opinion of the Court 

dent’s ability to withhold information from Congress impli-
cates different constitutional considerations than the Pres-
ident’s  ability  to  withhold  evidence  in  judicial  proceed-
ings.”).

Far  from  accounting  for  separation  of  powers  concerns, 
the  House’s  approach  aggravates  them  by  leaving  essen-
tially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the 
President’s personal records.  Any personal paper possessed
by  a  President  could  potentially  “relate  to”  a  conceivable
subject  of  legislation,  for  Congress  has  broad  legislative
powers that touch a vast number of subjects.  Brief for Re-
spondent 46.  The President’s financial records could relate 
to economic reform, medical records to health reform, school 
transcripts to education reform, and so on.  Indeed, at ar-
gument, the House was unable to identify any type of infor-
mation that lacks some relation to potential legislation.  See 
Tr. of Oral Arg. 52–53, 62–65. 

Without  limits  on  its  subpoena  powers,  Congress  could
“exert  an  imperious  controul”  over  the  Executive  Branch
and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the 
Framers feared.  The Federalist No. 71, at 484 (A. Hamil-
ton);  see  id.,  No.  48,  at  332–333  (J.  Madison);  Bowsher  v. 
Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 721–722, 727 (1986).  And a limitless 
subpoena power would transform the “established practice” 
of the political branches.  Noel Canning, 573 U. S., at 524 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  Instead of negotiating 
over  information  requests,  Congress  could  simply  walk
away from the bargaining table and compel compliance in 
court. 

The House and the courts below suggest that these sepa-
ration  of  powers  concerns  are  not  fully  implicated  by  the
particular subpoenas here, but we disagree.  We would have 
to be “blind” not to see what “[a]ll others can see and under-
stand”:  that  the  subpoenas  do  not  represent  a  run-of-the-
mill  legislative  effort  but  rather  a  clash  between  rival