Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

14 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

Opinion of the Court 

The President’s objection therefore must be limited to the 
additional distraction caused by the subpoena itself.  But 
that argument runs up against the 200 years of precedent 
establishing that Presidents, and their official communica-
tions, are subject to judicial process, see Burr, 25 F. Cas., at 
34,  even  when  the  President  is  under  investigation,  see 
Nixon, 418 U. S., at 706. 

2 
The President next claims that the stigma of being sub-
poenaed will undermine his leadership at home and abroad.
Notably, the Solicitor General does not endorse this argu-
ment, perhaps because we have twice denied absolute im-
munity claims by Presidents in cases involving allegations
of  serious  misconduct.  See  Clinton,  520  U. S.,  at  685; 
Nixon, 418 U. S., at 687.  But even if a tarnished reputation 
were a cognizable impairment, there is nothing inherently 
stigmatizing  about  a  President  performing  “the  citizen’s
normal  duty  of  . . .  furnishing  information  relevant”  to  a
criminal investigation.  Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 
691 (1972).  Nor can we accept that the risk of association 
with persons or activities under criminal investigation can
absolve a President of such an important public duty.  Prior 
Presidents  have  weathered  these  associations  in  federal 
cases, supra, at 6–10, and there is no reason to think any 
attendant notoriety is necessarily greater in state court pro-
ceedings.

To  be  sure,  the  consequences  for  a  President’s  public
standing will likely increase if he is the one under investi-
gation.  But, again, the President concedes that such inves-
tigations are permitted under Article II and the Supremacy
Clause, and receipt of a subpoena would not seem to cate-
gorically magnify the harm to the President’s reputation.

Additionally, while the current suit has cast the Mazars
subpoena  into  the  spotlight,  longstanding  rules  of  grand 
jury secrecy aim to prevent the very stigma the President