Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

ject, explaining that much of it was “private” or mere “ru-
mors” and “neither safety nor justice” permitted him to “ex-
pos[e] names” apart from identifying the conspiracy’s “prin-
cipal actor”: Aaron Burr.  Id., at 39–40.  Instead of the entire 
correspondence,  Jefferson  sent  Congress  particular  docu-
ments and a special message summarizing the conspiracy. 
Id.,  at  39–43;  see  generally  Vance,  ante,  at  3–4.    Neither 
Congress  nor  the  President  asked  the  Judiciary  to 
intervene.2 

Ever since, congressional demands for the President’s in-
formation  have  been  resolved  by  the  political  branches
without  involving  this  Court.  The  Reagan  and  Clinton
presidencies provide two modern examples:

During the Reagan administration, a House subcommit-
tee subpoenaed all documents related to the Department of
the Interior’s decision whether to designate Canada a recip-
rocal  country  for  purposes  of  the  Mineral  Lands  Leasing 
Act.  President Reagan directed that certain documents be
withheld because they implicated his confidential relation-
ship  with  subordinates.    While  withholding  those  docu-
ments,  the  administration  made  “repeated  efforts”  at  ac-
commodation  through  limited  disclosures  and  testimony 
over  a  period  of  several  months.  6  Op.  of  Office  of  Legal
Counsel  751,  780  (1982).    Unsatisfied,  the  subcommittee 
and its parent committee eventually voted to hold the Sec-
retary of the Interior in contempt, and an innovative com-
promise soon followed:  All documents were made available, 
but  only  for  one  day  with  no  photocopying,  minimal
notetaking,  and  no  participation  by  non-Members  of  Con-
gress.  Id., at 780–781; see H. R. Rep. No. 97–898, pp. 3–8 
(1982). 

—————— 

2 By contrast, later that summer, the Judiciary was called on to resolve 
whether  President  Jefferson  could  be  issued  a  subpoena  duces  tecum 
arising from Burr’s criminal trial.  See United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 
30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807); see also Trump v. Vance, ante, at 5–7.