US Supreme Court Rules Against Absolute Immunity For President From Investigation; Allows Access To Trump's Tax Records

With a majority of 7-2, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against complete presidential immunity by allowing a New York prosecutor access to the President's financial records. However, the Congress has been prevented from similar access to the documents, for the time-being. In the case Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al., the SCOTUS laid down the principle that a sitting President cannot evade criminal investigation, thereby ruling that the subpoena issued for retrieving his financial records for turning over to a grand jury can be enforced. Despite this, the Court chose to not go into the aspect of whether the Congress could also obtain the financial documents, and sent the matter back to the lower courts.It is to be noted that the instant case involves the first state criminal subpoena directed to a President, which the President claims to be unenforceable. FACTS OF THE CASESubsequent to an investigation which had been opened by the New York County District Attorney's Office into "business transactions involving multiple individuals whose conduct may have violated state law", a subpoena duces tecum had been served in 2019 on the personal accounting firm of President Donald Trump, for access to his financial records. President Trump, in his personal capacity, had sued the district attorney as well as his personal accounting firm, submitting the argument that "a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause". The Federal District Court, wherein the suit had been filed by President Trump, dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, and "in the alternative, held that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief". The Second Circuit rejected the District Court's dismissal, but agreed with the denial of injunctive relief, "concluding that presidential immunity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena" as well as rejected the argument that in order to seek the President's documents, the state grand jury subpoena must "satisfy a heightened showing of need". HELDThe judgement commences on the following note:"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. Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, Presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts." Chief Justice John Roberts has authored the ruling and was joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanuagh. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both dissented. Rejecting Trump's argument, it was held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution do not preclude or require a heightened standard for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. This was supported by the direction given by John Marshall in 1807 in a treason trial of Aaron Burr to grant Burr's motion for a subpoena duces tecum directed at President Thomas Jefferson. "In the two centuries since Burr [United States v. Aaron 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". The ruling had also been applied in the case of United States v. Nixon wherein the Court had rejected Nixon's claims of absolute privilege of confidentiality for all presidential communication during the Watergate Scandal. LAW AND PRECEDENTS ALREADY EXIST TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM VEXATIOUS LAWSUITS THAT MAY DISTRACT HIM AND TARNISH HIS REPUTATIONThe judgement also refers to the issue regarding state criminal subpoenas. It rejects the President's claim that "the Supremacy Clause 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". Relying on the cases of Burr and Nixon yet again, the SCOTUS observed 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 (Clinton v. Jones)". It further rejected the claim that state criminal subpoenas necessarily pose a "unique threat of impairment and thus require absolute immunity". It has also been contended by the President that "complying with state criminal subpoenas would necessarily distract the Chief Executive from his duties" and that "the stigma of being subpoenaed will undermine his leadership at home and abroad."This was also rejected by the SCOTUS, which observed:"But even if a tarnished reputation were a cognizable impairment, there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about a President...

US Supreme Court Rules Against Absolute Immunity For President From Investigation; Allows Access To Trump's Tax Records

Radhika Roy

'There is nothing inherently stigmatizing about a President performing 'the citizen's normal duty o furnishing information relevant' to a criminal investigation'

Tags