Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 58

14 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

have had that effect because President Nixon had already
left office.)

Instead,  we  adopted  a  rule  for  all  such  suits,  and  we 
should take a similar approach here.  The rule should take 
into account both the effect of subpoenas on the functioning
of  the  Presidency  and  the  risk  that  they  will  be  used  for 
harassment. 

I turn first to the question of the effect of a state grand
jury subpoena for a President’s records.  When the issuance 
of such a subpoena is part of an investigation that regards
the President as a “target” or “subject,”9 the subpoena can
easily impair a President’s “energetic performance of [his] 
constitutional duties.”  Cheney v. United States Dist. Court 
for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 382 (2004).  Few individuals will 
simply  brush  off  an  indication  that  they  may  be  within  a 
prosecutor’s crosshairs.  Few will put the matter out of their 
minds and go about their work unaffected.  For many, the
prospect  of  prosecution  will  be  the  first  and  last  thing  on
their minds every day.

We have come to expect our Presidents to shoulder bur-
dens that very few people could bear, but it is unrealistic to
think that the prospect of possible criminal prosecution will 

—————— 

9 Respondent asserts that his office has never characterized President
Trump as a “target” of the investigation, Brief for Respondent Vance 29, 
n. 10, but by the same token, respondent has never said that the Presi-
dent is not a “target.”  Moreover, the terms “target” and “subject” have
no consistent legal meaning.  The United States Attorney’s Manual de-
fines a “target” as “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury 
has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime
and  who,  in  the  judgment  of  the  prosecutor,  is  a  putative  defendant.” 
Dept.  of  Justice,  Justice  Manual,  Section  9–11.151  (Jan.  2020), 
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.151/. 
“A  ‘sub-
ject’ of an investigation” is defined as “a person whose conduct is within
the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.”  Ibid.  Of course, these defi-
nitions are not binding on the State of New York, but under them, it is 
apparent that the President is at least a “subject.”