Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 43

18 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

doing so: impeachment.7 

A 
It is often acknowledged, “if only half-heartedly honored,”
that one of the motivating principles of our Constitution is 
the  separation  of  powers.  Association  of  American  Rail-
roads,  575  U. S.,  at  74  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment).  The Framers recognized that there are three forms 
of governmental power: legislative, executive and judicial.
The  Framers  also  created  three  branches:  Congress,  the
President,  and  the  Judiciary.  The  three  powers  largely 
align  with  the  three  branches.    To  a  limited  extent,  how-
ever,  the  Constitution  contains  “a  partial  intermixture  of
those  departments  for  special  purposes.”  The  Federalist 
No. 66, p. 401 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).  One of 
those special purposes is the system of checks and balances, 
and impeachment is one of those checks. 

The Constitution grants the House “the sole Power of Im-
peachment,” Art. I, §2, cl. 5, and it specifies that the Presi-
dent may be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Art. II, §4.  The founding gen-
eration understood impeachment as a check on Presidential 
abuses.  In  response  to  charges  that  impeachment  “con-
founds  legislative  and  judiciary  authorities  in  the  same 
body,” Alexander Hamilton called it “an essential check in
the hands of [Congress] upon the encroachments of the ex-
ecutive.”  The Federalist No. 66, at 401–402.  And, in the 
Virginia  ratifying  convention,  James  Madison  identified 
impeachment as a check on Presidential abuse of the treaty 
power.  10 Documentary History 1397. 

B 
The power to impeach includes a power to investigate and 

—————— 

7 I  express  no  view  on  whether  there  are  any  limitations  on  the  im-
peachment power that would prevent the House from subpoenaing the
documents at issue.