Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

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

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Chief Justice Marshall was careful to note that “in no case 
of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the 
president as against an ordinary  individual,” and he held 
that  the  subpoena  to  President  Jefferson  was  permissible
only because the prosecutor had shown that the materials
sought were “essential to the justice of the [pending crimi-
nal] case.”  United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 
14,694) (CC Va. 1807) (brackets omitted). 

In United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974), where the
Watergate Special Prosecutor subpoenaed tape recordings
and documents under the control of President Nixon, this 
Court refused to quash the subpoena because there was a
“demonstrated, specific need for [the] evidence in a pending
criminal trial.”  Id., at 713.  In an earlier Watergate-related
case  where  a  Senate  Committee  subpoenaed  President 
Nixon’s White House tapes, the D. C. Circuit refused to or-
der  their  production  because  the  Committee  had  failed  to
show  that  “the  subpoenaed  evidence  [wa]s  demonstrably
critical  to  the  responsible  fulfillment  of  the  Committee’s 
functions.”  Senate Select Committee on Presidential Cam-
paign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725, 731 (1974).  Later, 
when  an  independent  counsel  investigating  a  Cabinet  of-
ficer  wanted  to  enforce  a  federal  grand  jury  subpoena  for
privileged materials held by the White House counsel, the 
D. C.  Circuit  explained  that  enforcement  demanded  a
“ ‘demonstrated, specific need’ ” for the materials sought.  In 
re Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d 729, 736 (1997) (per curiam).

The important point is not that the subpoena in this case 
should necessarily be governed by the particular tests used
in these cases, most of which involved official records that 
were claimed to be privileged.  Rather, the point is that we 
should not treat this subpoena like an ordinary grand jury 
subpoena and should not relegate a President to the meager
defenses  that  are  available  when  an  ordinary  grand  jury 
subpoena is challenged.  But that, at bottom, is the effect of 
the Court’s decision.