Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 62.0

18 

TRUMP v. VANCE 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

The Presidency deserves greater protection.  Thus, in a 
case like this one, a prosecutor should be required (1) to pro-
vide at least a general description of the possible offenses
that are under investigation, (2) to outline how the subpoe-
naed records relate to those offenses, and (3) to explain why 
it is important that the records be produced and why it is
necessary for production to occur while the President is still
in office. 

In  the  present  case,  the  district  attorney  made  a  brief 
It 
proffer,  but  important  questions  were  left  hanging. 
would not be unduly burdensome to insist on answers be-
fore enforcing the subpoena.

One obvious question concerns the scope of the subpoena.
The subpoena issued by the grand jury is largely a copy of 
the subpoenas issued by Committees of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and it would be quite a coincidence if the rec-
ords  relevant  to  an  investigation  of  possible  violations  of 
New York criminal law just so happened to be almost iden-
tical to the records thought by congressional Committees to
be useful in considering federal legislation.  It is therefore 
appropriate to ask the district attorney to explain the need
for the various items that the subpoena covers. 

The  district  attorney  should  also  explain  why  it  is  im-
portant that the information in question be obtained from
the  President’s  records  rather  than  another  source.  See, 
e.g., Nixon, 418 U. S., at 702; Sealed Case, 121 F. 3d, at 755. 
And the district attorney should set out why he finds it nec-
essary that the records be produced now as opposed to when 
the  President  leaves  office.    At  argument,  respondent’s
counsel told us that his office’s concern is the expiration of
the statute of limitations,11 but there are potential solutions 
to that problem.  Even if New York law does not automati-
cally  suspend  the  statute  of  limitations  for  prosecuting  a 

—————— 

11 Tr. of Oral Arg. 77, 102.