Trump v. Vance

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.'s attempt to subpoena the tax records of President Donald Trump as part of the ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal, which Trump has litigated to prevent their release. The Court held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. The 7–2 decision was issued in July 2020, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Background
As Donald Trump indicated his intent to run for President of the United States as a Republican candidate, there had been a call for him to release his income tax returns in the public interest, as most Presidential candidates had done in the past. Trump had stated in his campaign that he would release them once they were done being "worked on". Following his election victory and taking office in 2017, Trump then refused to give over his tax records, stating that voters were not interested in them.

The Democratic Party gained control of the United States House of Representatives in the following 2018 election, and by April 2019 the United States House Committee on Ways and Means formally requested from the IRS six years of Trump's returns, a power vested in Congress under. The IRS failed to comply with the request, and both the Ways and Means Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform filed subpoenas to Mazars, Trump's accounting firm, to obtain the tax information. The Trump administration refused to comply with the subpoenas, asserting that the subpoenas lacked "a legitimate legislative purpose". However, as these subpoenas were directed at Mazars, and later at Deutsche Bank and Capital One, where Trump had accounts, these entities had indicated they would comply with the subpoenas. Trump then tried to block the subpoenas, leading to two separate suits, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, which were consolidated under the Trump v. Mazars suit at the Supreme Court in the 2019 term.

Separately, as part of the city's ongoing criminal investigation into the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, Manhattan's district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. subpoenaed Mazars for Trump's tax returns in August 2019. Trump filed suit against the district attorney and Mazars in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the subpoena, arguing that a sitting president enjoys "absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind." Prosecutors for the city countered that Trump had "sweeping immunity" from a criminal probe while he is in office, and that Trump was "seeking to invent and enforce a new presidential 'tax return privilege,' on the theory that disclosing information in a tax return will necessarily reveal information that will somehow impede the functioning of a President, sufficiently to meet the test of irreparable harm." The District Court dismissed the case on the basis of Younger v. Harris (1971), where federal courts are to abstain in the matters of tort claims being brought by the person being prosecuted by those claims. As such, the District Court ordered Trump to comply with subpoena pending a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit panel ruled unanimously against Trump in November 2019. Their decision stated that that the president is not immune from "the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President" and that a state grand jury may permissibly issue subpoenas "in aid of its investigation of potential crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation may in some way implicate the President."

Supreme Court
Trump petitioned to the Supreme Court on the Second Circuit's ruling to the New York district attorney subpoena, as well as in the separate cases related to the House Committee subpoenas. The Supreme Court certified all three cases in December 2019, consolidating the two House Committee cases into Trump v. Mazars, while handling the New York case under Trump v. Vance separately.

Oral arguments were held on May 12, 2020, alongside the Trump v. Mazars arguments, both as part of the set of cases held through teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Observers to the court recognized that the Justices treated Vance, which involved a subpoena related to a grand jury criminal investigation, and Mazars, involving subpoenas related to a Congressional investigation, very differently, and expected there to be different results between the two cases, with Vance likely to favor the release of the tax records. Justices also spoke of possibly sending both cases to the lower courts with a set of standards to evaluate the subpoena requests.

The Court released its decision on July 9, 2020, affirming the decision of the Second Circuit and remanding the case for continued review. The 7–2 decision affirmed that absolute immunity to the President is not granted either by the Supremacy Clause or Article II of the United States Constitution. Through these principles, the Court also held that the President enjoys no absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas which are directed at his private papers and that he is also not entitled to a heightened standard for the issuance of such a subpoena. Instead Trump can rely on the defenses available to everyone else like overbreadth and unwarranted harassment. In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court's order stated that "the President may raise further arguments as appropriate" to challenge the subpoena. In evaluating these arguments judges should be “meticulous” according to the Court, but "this does not mean they should use a stricter standard in evaluating them."

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts wrote that former Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle 200 years earlier that no citizen, including the President of the United States, can escape the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. Roberts wrote "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence'. Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence joined by Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that he would have held the case to the standard established in United States v. Nixon, which determined that a prosecutor must have a "demonstrated, specific need" for subpoenaing a President. Otherwise, Kavanaugh agreed in judgement, adding that he "unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate dissents. Thomas stated that the majority's decision allowing for subpoenas to be placed against the President creates an undue burden, writing "the demands on the president's time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary, and the office of the president cannot be delegated to subordinates. A subpoena imposes both demands on the president's limited time and a mental burden, even when the president is not directly engaged in complying." Alito expressed concern that the majority decision would open the President to potential action from over two thousand local prosecutors and would impair the functionality of the office of the President. Alito wrote "Respect for the structure of government created by the Constitution demands greater protection for an institution that is vital to the nation’s safety and well-being."

Subsequent events
On the same day, the Trump v. Mazars case was remanded back to the lower court, ruling with the same 7–2 split that while Congress does have authority to subpoena the President as part of their legislative duties, there is a stronger requirement for the subpoena to be appropriate in contrast to a state grand jury subpoena. Chief Justice Roberts gave the lower courts a list of four considerations to determine when a Congressional subpoena is appropriate within the scope of the separation of powers.

At request of Vance, the Supreme Court on July 17, 2020 allowed the judgement from their ruling to take effect immediately instead of the 25 days after decision that is normally established, allowing the district attorney's office to proceed to request documents while the judicial arguments continue.

On Trump v. Vance's remand to the Southern New York District Court, Judge Victor Marrero gave Trump a deadline of July 15 to provide additional objections to the subpoena. Trump provided a second complaint asserting that Vance's subpoena was politically motivated and overly broad. Marrero denied to block the subpoena on orders issued on August 20, 2020, stating that Trump's new complaint was not substantially different from the first, and dismissed Trump's case with prejudice, thus allowing the subpoena to be executed. He concluded: "Justice requires an end to this controversy." The next day, August 21, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court to put the subpoena on hold, but the court denied his request that same day. Instead, the court granted him a hearing, scheduled for September 1, but meanwhile the subpoena remained in force. It is possible that Trump's accounting records could be given to the New York state grand jury before the hearing takes place. The appeals court ruled unanimously on October 7, 2020 to deny Trump's objection and ordered the subpoena to be followed through. Trump had stated his intent to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court and he has been granted 12 days in which to do so, so prosecutors will delay execution of the subpoena. Trump submitted his petition to the Supreme Court to block the latest order on October 13, 2020.

The New York Times, through unnamed sources, reported on over two decades of tax information from Trump on September 27, 2020. While the information created a significant discourse over the findings, it is not expected to impact Vance or the related Congressional Mazars case.