Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Page Number: 67.0

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

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

ing them to testify by deposition represented a sharp depar-
ture from conventional practice.15 

The Court turns to United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 
but  that  case  arose  under  markedly  different  circum-
stances.  Because the trial was in federal court, there was 
no issue of federalism, and the Court refused to order that 
the  subpoena  be  quashed  because  of  “the  demonstrated,
specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”  Id., 
at 713.  In the case now before us, a “demonstrated, specific
need” is precisely what is lacking. 

This Court’s decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 
provides  no  greater  support  for  today’s  decision.    In  that 
case, as noted, the lawsuit was brought in federal, not state, 
court, and while the subject of that particular civil suit was
embarrassing,  the  Court  addressed  the  broad  question 
whether a President is immune from civil suits “ ‘in all but 

—————— 

15 When  President  Ford  was  subpoenaed  as  a  defense  witness  in  the 
trial  of  a  woman  who  had  attempted  to  assassinate  him,  the  District 
Court ruled that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 allowed him to 
be deposed at a place of his choosing, instead of testifying in person, and
provided for defense counsel but not the defendant herself to be present. 
Then, as now, Rule 15 permits a witness to be deposed under “exceptional 
circumstances”  in  order  “to  preserve  testimony  for  trial.”    This  Rule  is 
generally used when a witness may not be available to testify at trial,
not simply when it would be burdensome or inconvenient for the witness 
to appear.  The judge’s application of the Rule in this case was innova-
tive.  In addition, the defendant was not present when President Ford 
was deposed.  Repeating such a practice today might run into other ob-
stacles.  See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1020–1021 (1988); see also Rule
15(c) (providing for the defendant’s presence during the deposition).

A  similar  procedure  appears  to  have  been  followed  when  President 
Carter testified as a prosecution witness in a criminal trial.  No reported
case explains the legal authority cited as justification for excusing live
testimony, but Rule 15 may have been invoked.  As for President Carter’s 
testimony by deposition before a grand jury, although neither the Fed-
eral  Rules  of  Evidence  nor  the  Confrontation  Clause  apply  to  federal 
grand jury proceedings, testimony by deposition is nevertheless not the 
norm.