Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

and  intelligence  that  judges  almost  always  will  not  have.
And  his  decisionmaking  takes  into  account  the  full  spec-
trum of the Government’s operations, not just the matters
directly related to a particular case.  Even with perfect in-
formation,  courts  lack  the  institutional  competence  to  en-
gage in a searching review of the President’s reasons for not
complying with a subpoena.

Here,  too,  Chief  Justice  Marshall  was  correct.    A  court 
should “fee[l] many, perhaps, peculiar motives for manifest-
ing as guarded a respect for the chief magistrate of the Un-
ion  as  is  compatible  with  its  official  duties.”  Burr,  25 
F. Cas., at 37.  Courts should have the same “circumspec-
tion”  as  Chief  Justice  Marshall  before  “tak[ing]  any  step
which would in any manner relate to that high personage.”  
Id., at 35.3 

* 

* 

* 
I agree with the majority that the President has no abso-
lute  immunity  from  the  issuance  of  this  subpoena.    The 
President  also  sought  relief  from  enforcement  of  the  sub-
poena, however, and he asked this Court to  allow further 
proceedings on that question if we rejected his claim of ab-
solute  immunity.    The  Court  inexplicably  fails  to  address 
this request, although its decision leaves the President free 
to renew his request for an injunction against enforcement 
—————— 

3 The  President  and  the  Solicitor  General  argue  that  the  grand  jury
must make a  showing of heightened need.  I agree with the majority’s 
decision not to adopt this standard, ante, at 17–19, but for different rea-
sons.  The constitutional question in this case is whether the President 
is  able  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  whereas  a  heightened  need
standard addresses a logically independent issue.  Under a heightened-
need standard, a grand jury with only the usual need for particular in-
formation  would  be  refused  it  when  the  President  is  perfectly  able  to
comply, while a grand jury with a heightened need would be entitled to 
it  even  if  compliance  would  place  undue  obligations  on  the  President. 
This result makes little sense and lacks any basis in the original under-
standing of the Constitution.  I would leave questions of the grand jury’s 
need to state law.