Trump v. Vance - Case Summary

Law Case Summary

Full Case Name: Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. --- (2020)

Facts

Vance, the District Attorney of the County of New York, served a grand jury subpoena duces tecum on the personal accounting firm of President Trump. The subpoena demanded for financial records relating to the President and his businesses (U.S. Supreme Court, 2020).

President Trump, in his personal capacity, sued the D.A. and the accounting firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Supreme Court, 2020).

Issue(s)

The main issue in question was whether a sitting President has absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas seeking the President's private papers.

Decision

The Supreme Court held, with a 7-2 majority, that a sitting President is not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers and remanded the case to the district court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate (U.S. Supreme Court, 2020).

Analysis

The case further clarified the limits of presidential immunity. By refusing to grant absolute immunity to Trump, the Court affirmed its previous rulings in United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones.

This ruling allows for more robust investigation of sitting presidents, particularly relating to personal and business-related matters. Future presidents may be more accountable to investigations and potential allegations of misconduct.

References

• U.S. Supreme Court. (2020). Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ---

Journalist Brief

In the case of Trump v. Vance, the US Supreme Court ruled that a sitting US President does not enjoy complete immunity from state criminal subpoenas seeking their private papers. The decision stemmed from an investigation by New York County's District Attorney into President Trump's private and business financial records. The case is significant as it affirmed previous rulings limiting presidential immunity and could lead to increased accountability of sitting presidents to investigations and potential misconduct allegations.