Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued two opinions concerning the ability of different entities to issue subpoenas to a president.  As the two cases involved different entities issuing subpoenas, the opinions treated them very differently.

The first case, Vance, involved a state grand jury subpoena.  Over the years, the Supreme Court has considered a significant number of cases involving subpoena.  Some involved subpoenas issued to private parties.  Others considered federal criminal subpoenas issued to the president.  The Supreme Court has also considered federal civil cases involving a president.  The sum total of these prior cases is that there are rules limiting the issuance of a subpoena.  In light of these cases, the Supreme Court decided that there was no blanket exemption that permitted a president to challenge a state grand jury subpoena.  Nor is there a significantly different standard when the case involves a president.  Instead the ordinary considerations (whether the subpoena is appropriately designed to seek information relevant to the inquiry) usually control.  However, while it is not a heightened standard, a court should consider the degree to which the subpoena may interfere with presidential duty in determining whether to grant any relief from the subpoenas.  In other words, the State does not need to make a different showing to justify a subpoena to a president than it would to justify a subpoena to an average business, but the president may have unique grounds that he can raise to block the subpoena.

The judge hearing the case seeking to quash the grand jury subpoena has already begun the process for considering any new objections that the president may raise (and the Supreme Court has issued its judgment in that case early).  So we may get a final decision soon.  However, the material will then be part of the confidential grand jury case.  Thus, any financial records will not be public in the near future. Continue Reading...