Donald J. Trump, Petitioners v. Mazars USA, LLP; Donald J. Trump, Petitioners v. Deutsche…

Summary

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that congressional subpoenas for a President’s personal records require special scrutiny reflecting the separation of powers, even when directed to third parties. Courts must consider alternative sources, reasonable limits on scope, the evidence supporting the asserted legislative purpose, and burdens on the President. The Court rejected both the President’s proposed executive-privilege-based standards and the House’s ordinary legislative-purpose approach, vacated both appellate judgments, and remanded without deciding whether the subpoenas ultimately were enforceable. Justice Thomas dissented alone, arguing that Congress lacks legislative authority to subpoena anyone’s private, nonofficial documents and must pursue presidential wrongdoing through impeachment. Justice Alito dissented alone, agreeing that remand was necessary but requiring a more concrete showing of legislative purpose, constitutional authority, scope, and need than the Court’s remand prescribed.