Supreme Court Decisions Regarding State And Congressional Subpoenas For Presidential Financial Records

• Published date: 30 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Tax, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Tax Authorities
• Law Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP
• Author: Ms Isabelle Farrar

In two decisions issued on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court addressed challenges to several subpoenas that sought the President's financial records, including tax returns. In a case concerning a subpoena issued by a state district attorney's office, the Court held that a sitting president is not categorically immune from issuance of a subpoena in a state criminal proceeding. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, including potentially an analysis of additional defenses. In a separate case concerning subpoenas issued by various U.S. House of Representatives committees, the Court remanded the cases to the District Courts for further analysis of whether the House exceeded its constitutional authority in issuing the subpoenas.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ____ (2020)

Trump v. Vance concerned a subpoena duces tecum issued by the New York County District Attorney's Office during a state criminal grand jury investigation and served on Mazars USA, President Trump's personal accounting firm The subpoena sought financial records pertaining to the President and his businesses, including tax returns and related schedules from 2011 to present. The President broadly argued that the U.S Constitution's Supremacy Clause gives a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas, reasoning that any such subpoena categorically impairs the performance of the President's powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the independence of the Executive.

The Court rejected all three arguments: (i) that the issuance of properly tailored subpoenas in a state criminal proceeding would necessarily divert the executive from its duties; (ii) that the stigma associated with subpoenas would undermine his leadership at home and abroad; and (iii) that the allowance of such subpoenas would lead to significant political harassment and frivolous litigation against any President.¹ To reach its conclusion that absolute immunity is not necessary or appropriate under the U.S. Constitution's Article II or its Supremacy Clause, the Court relied on precedent established in cases regarding federal subpoenas, including Nixon v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982); Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); and U.S. v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (Cir. Ct. D. Va. 1807), as well as the existing safeguards applicable to grand jury investigations.² Notably, the Court unanimously agreed on this holding.³

The Solicitor General further argued that such a...