Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 48

2 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

use  their  considerable  weapons  to  settle  the  matter.  See 
ante, at 10 (opinion of the Court) (“Congress and the Presi-
dent maintained this tradition of negotiation and compro-
mise—without  the  involvement  of  this  Court—until  the 
present dispute”).  But when Congress issues such a sub-
poena  to  a  third  party,  Congress  must  surely  appreciate
that the Judiciary may be pulled into the dispute, and Con-
gress should not expect that the courts will allow the sub-
poena to be enforced without seriously examining its legiti-
macy.

Whenever  such  a  subpoena  comes  before  a  court,  Con-
gress should be required to make more than a perfunctory 
showing  that  it  is  seeking  the  documents  for  a  legitimate 
legislative purpose and not for the purpose of exposing sup-
posed Presidential wrongdoing.  See ante, at 12.  The House 
can inquire about possible Presidential wrongdoing pursu-
ant to its impeachment power, see ante, at 17–21 (THOMAS, 
J., dissenting), but the Committees do not defend these sub-
poenas as ancillary to that power. 

Instead,  they  claim  that  the  subpoenas  were  issued  to
gather information that is relevant to legislative issues, but 
there  is  disturbing  evidence  of  an  improper  law  enforce-
ment  purpose.    See  940  F.  3d  710,  767–771  (CADC  2019) 
(Rao, J., dissenting).  In addition, the sheer volume of doc-
uments sought calls out for explanation.  See 943 F. 3d 627, 
676–681 (CA2 2019) (Livingston, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part).

The  Court  recognizes  that  the  decisions  below  did  not
give  adequate  consideration  to  separation  of  powers  con-
cerns.  Therefore, after setting out a non-exhaustive list of
considerations  for  the  lower  courts  to  take  into  account, 
ante,  at  18–20,  the  Court  vacates  the  judgments  of  the 
Courts of Appeals and sends the cases back for reconsider-
ation.  I  agree  that  the  lower  courts  erred  and  that  these 
cases must be remanded, but I do not think that the consid-