Thread by @scotusToons

The #SCOTUS held in #Trump v. Vance that Article II and the #SupremacyClause do not categorically preclude,
or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal
subpoena to a sitting #President. #scotusToons
See the oral argument:

" In 1807, John Marshall... granted Burr’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum directed at President Jefferson...

...In rejecting the prosecution’s argument that a #President was not subject to such a subpoena, Marshall held that a President does not “stand exempt” from the #SixthAmendment’s guarantee that the accused have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses for their defense. "

"The sole argument for an exemption was that a President’s “duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects.” But, in Marshall’s assessment, those duties were “not unremitting,” and any conflict could be addressed by the court upon return of the subpoena. "

Marshall concluded that, “[T]he propriety of introducing any papers,” he explained, would “depend on the character of the paper, not the character of the person who holds it,” and would have “due consideration” upon the return of the subpoena." #sixthAmendment

"In the two centuries since Burr, successive Presidents from Monroe to Clinton have accepted Marshall’s ruling that the Chief Executive is
subject to subpoena and have uniformly agreed to testify when called in criminal proceedings. "

In 1974 the question whether to compel the disclosure of official
communications over the President’s objection came to a head when the #Watergate Special Prosecutor subpoenaed directing President #Nixon to produce tape recordings of Oval Office meetings.

This Court rejected #Nixon’s claim of an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all presidential communications. and held that, "generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."

"Here, the President claims that the #SupremacyClause gives a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with such subpoenas would categorically impair the performance of his Article II functions."

"The Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the United States, claims that a state grand jury subpoena for a sitting President’s personal records must, at the very least, meet a heightened standard of need."

"The President’s unique duties as head of the Executive Branch
come with protections that safeguard his ability to perform his vital functions. The Constitution also guarantees "the entire independence of the General Government from any control by the respective States.""

Marshall’s ruling in Burr confirms that federal criminal subpoenas do not “rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive’s ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions.”"

"But the President claims that state criminal subpoenas necessarily pose a unique threat of impairment and thus require absolute immunity. His categorical argument focuses on three burdens: diversion, stigma, and harassment."

The President contends that complying with state criminal subpoenas would necessarily distract the Chief Executive from his duties. He grounds that concern on #Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

"The Court expressly rejected immunity based on distraction alone 15 years later in #Clinton v. Jones, when #PresidentClinton sought absolute immunity from civil liability for private acts."

A properly tailored criminal subpoena will not hamper the performance of a President.

(2) The President claims this case is different. He believes that he is
under investigation and argues that the toll will necessarily be heavier
in that circumstance. But the he is not seeking immunity from the diversion occasioned by the prospect of future criminal liability.

His objection is instead limited to the additional distraction caused by the subpoena itself. That argument, however, runs up against the 200 years of precedent establishing that Presidents, and their official communications, are subject to judicial process

(ii) The President next claims that the stigma of being subpoenaed will undermine his leadership at home and abroad. But even if a tarnished reputation were a cognizable impairment, there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about a...

...President performing "the citizen's normal duty of... furnishing information relevant" to a criminal investigation... The consequences for a President’s public standing will likely increase if he is the one under investigation.

And the receipt of a subpoena would not seem to categorically magnify the harm to the President’s reputation. Additionally, in the grand jury context longstanding secrecy rules aim to prevent the very stigma the
President anticipates.

"(iii) Finally, the President argues that subjecting Presidents to state criminal subpoenas will make them “easily identifiable target[s]” for harassment." The Court rejected a nearly identical argument in #Clinton..."

#PresidentialHarassment

"The risk posed by harassing civil litigation was not “serious” because federal courts have the tools to deter and dismiss vexatious lawsuits."

"Federal law allows a President to challenge any such allegedly unconstitutional influence in a federal forum."

"A state grand jury subpoena seeking a President’s private papers need not satisfy a heightened need standard, for three reasons."

1. President stands in “nearly the same situation with any other individual.”
2. There's been no showing that heightened protection is necessary.

3. Absent a need to protect the Executive, the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence.

"A President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen."

A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges in either a state or a federal forum.

He can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties, in violation of the #SupremacyClause...

And he can argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would
impede his constitutional duties.

941 F. 3d 631, affirmed and remanded.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

Read the full opinion of the court:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…

Watch the oral argument:

@threadreaderapp
unroll