OCTOBER TERM, 2019
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRUMP v. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 19–635. Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020
In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office—acting on be-
half of a grand jury—served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA,
LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for
financial records relating to the President and his businesses. The
President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney
and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the sub-
poena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from
state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause. The
District Court dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine of
Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and, in the alternative, held that the
President was not entitled to injunctive relief. The Second Circuit re-
jected the District Court’s dismissal under Younger but agreed with
the court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that presidential im-
munity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena and rejecting the ar-
gument of the United States as amicus curiae that a state grand jury
subpoena seeking the President’s documents must satisfy a height-
ened showing of need.
Held: 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. Pp. 3–22.
(a) In 1807, John Marshall, presidin