Trump v. Vance is a 7-2 decision by CJ Roberts. As many of us argued, Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not contain an exclusion or higher standard for state criminal subpoenas for a sitting President.
scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…
scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl…
"A President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth."
As I argued in the past, the President helped to create more binding precedent against future presidents with extreme constitutional claims. This bought time for Trump but at the cost of countervailing precedent. It will push the matter beyond the election but at a high cost.
There is no spin possible. This is a major and embarrassing defeat for the President who, against the advice of many of us, advanced an unsustainable claim of absolute privilege. jonathanturley.org/2019/10/07/fed…
