Case No. 19-635 | 2d Cir.
May 12, 2020
Preview by Amy Orlov, Online Editor
Trump v. Vance is the third case in a series concerning President Trump’s tax returns following Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously refused to release his tax returns, a largely unprecedented decision for presidential candidates. He has further refused to release his tax returns since taking office. In 2019, the District Attorney for New York City, Cyrus Vance, served Mazars USA, LLP, the President’s accounting firm, a grand jury subpoena seeking various documents and records concerning, including the President’s tax returns from 2011 up to the present. President Trump informed the District Attorney that he would seek to prevent enforcement of this subpoena for all documents related to his tax returns. Thus, President Trump filed a claim in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York to restrain the subpoena issued to Mazars.
Relying on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district court held that federal courts should decline to intervene in state criminal prosecutions. It further held that there was no constitutional basis to temporarily restrain or enjoin the subpoena in this case. Thus, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that any presidential immunity from state law prosecutions does not extend to early investigative proceedings like grand jury subpoenas. However, the Second Circuit found that Younger v. Harris did not apply to this case and remanded the issue of broad federal court jurisdiction in state criminal prosecutions to the lower court.
The Court must now decide if this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. More specifically, the Court will determine whether the Constitution allows a local prosecutor to subpoena a third party for the financial records of a sitting president. President Trump argues that only Congress can hold the president accountable for wrongdoing. As such, the President should be categorically immune from any state and local prosecutions while he is in office as any proceeding may become overly political and may distract the President from his official duties. See Brief for Petitioner at 19, 28–29, Trump v. Vance, No. 19–635 (U.S. filed Jan. 27, 2020). Vance argues that the President and his records are not categorically immune from state grand jury subpoenas for documents that do not concern the President’s official duties and responsibilities while in office. See Brief for Respondent at 12–17, Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 (U.S. filed Jan. 27, 2020).
The Court’s decision in this case will likely have broad implications for the presidency, in addition to Trump himself and his businesses. The Department of Justice under Attorney General William Barr has weighed in on the case and asserts that a president has temporary absolute immunity, and thus, the Court should restrict the subpoena. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 8–11, Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 (U.S. filed Jan. 27, 2020). Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Vance, it is unlikely that the public will see Trump’s tax returns as grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. Additionally, it is not clear if Trump could be indicted following the grand jury subpoena, although the Court may refrain from answering this question.