Trump v. Vance, Jr.

19‐3204
Trump v. Vance, Jr.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
_______________
AUGUST TERM, 2019
(Argued: October 23, 2019 Decided: November 4, 2019)
Docket No. 19‐3204
_______________
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
—v.—
CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., in his official capacity as District Attorney of the County of
New York, MAZARS USA, LLP,
Defendants‐Appellees.1
_______________
Before: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHIN and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
_______________
President Donald J. Trump filed suit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to
restrain the District Attorney of New York County from enforcing a grand jury
subpoena served on Mazars USA LLP, a third‐party custodian of the President’s
financial records. The district court (Marrero, J.) abstained from exercising
1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to conform to the
above.
jurisdiction and dismissed the President’s complaint pursuant to Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), but also ruled in the alternative that the President is not
entitled to injunctive relief. On appeal, the President argues that abstention is not
the course that should be taken here, and he asserts a temporary absolute
presidential immunity that would forbid the grand jury from seeking his
financial records in service of an investigation into conduct that predated his
presidency. We agree that Younger abstention does not apply to the
circumstances of this case. We hold, however, that any presidential immunity
from state criminal process does not extend to investigative steps like the grand
jury subpoena at issue here. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s decision
on the immunity question, which we construe as an order denying a preliminary
injunction, VACATE the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint
on the ground of Younger abstention, and REMAND for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
_______________
WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, VA
(Cameron T. Norris, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington,
VA; Patrick Strawbridge, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Boston,
MA; Marc L. Mukasey, Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff, New
York, NY; Alan S. Futerfas, Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas,
New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiff‐Appellant.
CAREY R. DUNNE, General Counsel (Christopher Conroy, Solomon
Shinerock, James H. Graham, Sarah Walsh, Allen J. Vickey,
Assistant District Attorneys, on the brief), for Defendant‐
Appellee.
JOSEPH H. HUNT, Assistant Attorney General (Hashim M. Mooppan,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Mark R. Freeman, Scott R.
McIntosh, Gerard Sinzdak, Attorneys, on the brief), United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Amicus
Curiae United States of America, in support of Plaintiff‐
Appellant.
_______________
2
KATZMANN, Chief Judge:
This case presents the question of when, if ever, a county prosecutor can
subpoena a third‐party custodian for the financial and tax records of a sitting
President, over which the President has no claim of executive privilege.2 The
District Attorney of New York County has issued a grand jury subpoena to an
accounting firm that possesses a variety of such records because it performed
accounting services for President Donald J. Trump and his organization. When
the President sought injunctive relief in federal court to restrain enforcement of
that subpoena, the district court (Marrero, J.) declined to exercise jurisdiction and
dismissed the case under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The
district court also explained in an alternative holding why, in its view, there was
no constitutional basis to temporarily restrain or preliminarily enjoin the
subpoena at issue. On appeal, we conclude that Younger abstention does not
extend to the circumstances of this case, but we hold that the President has not
shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims sufficient to warrant
injunctive relief. Construing the district court’s discussion of the immunity
2Any references in this opinion to the President’s privilege or lack thereof
concerns only a President’s executive privilege.
3
question as an order denying a preliminary injunction, we AFFIRM that order,
VACATE the judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of Younger
abstention, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are straightforward. The District Attorney of the County
of New York has initiated a grand jury investigation that “targets New York
conduct and has yet to conclude as to specific charges or defendants.”3 Joint
App’x 46. The parties agree for purposes of this case that the grand jury is
investigating whether several individuals and entities have committed criminal
violations of New York law.
On August 1, 2019, the District Attorney served a subpoena duces tecum on
behalf of the grand jury on the Trump Organization.4 The subpoena sought
3 The President’s complaint is silent as to the nature of the grand jury
investigation, but the District Attorney has described the investigation in further
detail in a declaration filed in opposition to the President’s motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. The relevant portion of that declaration remains
redacted from the public record; in any event, we need not rely on those further
details here. It is enough for purposes of our analysis that the Mazars subpoena
seeks evidence in service of an investigation into potential criminal conduct
within the District Attorney’s jurisdiction, a fact about the investigation which
the district court treated as “uncontested.” Joint App’x 76.
4 According to the President’s complaint, the Trump Organization is
4
“documents and communications” from the period between June 1, 2015 and
September 20, 2018 relating to suspected “hush money” payments made to two
women. Joint App’x 39, 48. At first, the Trump Organization cooperated with the
subpoena and produced responsive documents. However, when “the President’s
attorneys”—private counsel retained by the President and apparently then acting
on behalf of the Trump Organization—learned that the District Attorney
interpreted the subpoena to require production of the President’s personal tax
returns, they “resisted” that interpretation. Joint App’x 21. Although the Trump
Organization has apparently continued to produce limited tranches of
documents in response to the August 1, 2019 subpoena, it has not produced any
tax records.
On August 29, 2019, the District Attorney served another subpoena duces
tecum on behalf of the grand jury on Defendant‐Appellee Mazars USA LLP (the
“Mazars subpoena”). Mazars is an accounting firm that possesses various
financial records relating to the President’s personal and business dealings, and
the Mazars subpoena seeks a wide variety of financial records dating from
wholly owned by the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, of which the President is
the grantor and beneficiary.
5
January 1, 2011 to the present and relating to the President, the Trump
Organization, and several related entities. Among the records sought in the
August 29, 2019 subpoena are any “[t]ax returns and related schedules, in draft,
as‐filed, and amended form” within Mazars’s possession.5 Joint App’x 34. The
5 The full document request is as follows:
1. For the period of January 1, 2011 to the present, with respect to
Donald J. Trump, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, the
Trump Organization Inc., the Trump Organization LLC, the
Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing
Member LLC, Trump Acquisition LLC, Trump Acquisition, Corp.,
the Trump Old Post Office LLC, the Trump Foundation, and any
related parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures,
predecessors, or successors (collectively, the “Trump Entities”):
a. Tax returns and related schedules, in draft, as‐filed, and
amended form;
b. Any and all statements of financial condition, annual
statements, periodic financial reports, and independent
auditors’ reports prepared, compiled, reviewed, or audited
by Mazars USA LLP or its predecessor, WeiserMazars LLP;
c. Regardless of time period, any and all engagement
agreements or contracts related to the preparation,
compilation, review, or auditing of the documents described
in items (a) and (b);
d. All underlying, supporting, or source documents and
records used in the preparation, compilation, review, or
auditing of documents described in items (a) and (b), and
any summaries of such documents and records; and
e. All work papers, memoranda, notes, and communications
related to the preparation, compilation, review, or auditing
of the documents described in items (a) and (b), including,
6
subpoena set a return date of September 19, 2019. Only the Mazars subpoena is
the subject of this action and appeal.6
On September 19, 2019, the President filed this action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The President’s complaint
asserted a broad presidential immunity from state criminal process and sought
“[a] declaratory judgment that the [Mazars] subpoena is invalid and
unenforceable while the President is in office;” “[a] permanent injunction staying
the subpoena while the President is in office;” “[a] permanent injunction
prohibiting the District Attorney’s office from taking any action to enforce the
subpoena, from imposing sanctions for noncompliance with the subpoena, and
from inspecting, using, maintaining, or disclosing any information obtained as a
result of the subpoena, until the President is no longer in office;” “[a] permanent
but not limited to,
i. All communications between Donald Bender and any
employee or representative of the Trump Entities as
defined above; and
ii. All communications, whether internal or external,
related to concerns about the completeness, accuracy, or
authenticity of any records, documents, valuations,
explanations, or other information provided by any
employee or representative of the Trump Entities.
6 Mazars itself takes no position on the legal issues raised in this appeal.
7
injunction prohibiting Mazars from disclosing, revealing, delivering, or
producing the requested information, or otherwise complying with the
subpoena, until the President is no longer in office;” and temporary restraining
orders and preliminary injunctions to the same effect during the pendency of the
federal litigation. Joint App’x 26.
After a compressed briefing schedule, the able district court issued a
thorough and thoughtful decision and order on October 7, 2019. See Trump v.
Vance, 395 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). The court held that it was required to
abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Supreme Court’s decision in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and it dismissed the President’s complaint
on that ground. Trump, 395 F. Supp. 3d at 316. The court also articulated an
alternative holding—to govern “in the event on appeal abstention were found
unwarranted under the circumstances presented here”—in which it denied the
President’s motion for injunctive relief. Id. at 290. This appeal followed
immediately on an expedited briefing schedule.
8
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
“We review de novo the essentially legal determination of whether the
requirements for abstention have been met.” Disability Rights N.Y. v. New York,
916 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2019).7 Likewise, although the denial of a preliminary
injunction is generally reviewable only for abuse of discretion, “[q]uestions of
law decided in connection with requests for preliminary injunctions . . . receive
the same de novo review that is appropriate for issues of law generally.” Am.
Express Fin. Advisors Inc. v. Thorley, 147 F.3d 229, 231 (2d Cir. 1998).
II. Younger Abstention
The district court dismissed the President’s complaint on the basis that
abstention was required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On appeal,
the President and the United States argue that Younger abstention is unwarranted
in the circumstances of this case. We agree.
“In the main, federal courts are obliged to decide cases within the scope of
federal jurisdiction.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013). “[O]nly
Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks,
7
alterations, emphases, footnotes, and citations are omitted.
9
exceptional circumstances justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in
deference to the States.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491
U.S. 350, 368 (1989) (“NOPSI”). Under Younger and its progeny, however, federal
courts must decline to exercise jurisdiction in three such exceptional categories of
cases: “First, Younger preclude[s] federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal
prosecutions. Second, certain civil enforcement proceedings warrant[] abstention.
Finally, federal courts [must] refrain[] from interfering with pending civil
proceedings involving certain orders uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’
ability to perform their judicial functions.” Sprint Commc’ns, 571 U.S. at 78.
Younger abstention is thus an “exception to th[e] general rule” that “a federal
court’s obligation to hear and decide a case is virtually unflagging,” id. at 77, and
the doctrine is also subject to exceptions of its own in cases of bad faith,
harassment, or other “extraordinary circumstances,” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S.
117, 124 (1975).
As the district court recognized, Younger abstention is grounded “partly on
traditional principles of equity, but . . . primarily on the ‘even more vital
consideration’ of comity,” which “includes ‘a proper respect for state functions, a
recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate
10
state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government
will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their
separate functions in their separate ways.’” NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 364 (quoting
Younger, 401 U.S. at 43–44). And as the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[w]hen
a federal court is asked to interfere with a pending state prosecution,” those
“established doctrines of equity and comity are reinforced by the demands of
federalism, which require that federal rights be protected in a manner that does
not unduly interfere with the legitimate functioning of the judicial systems of the
States.” Kugler, 421 U.S. at 123.
The demands of federalism are diminished, however, and the importance
of preventing friction is reduced, when state and federal actors are already
engaged in litigation. Recognition of this reality underlies legislative enactments
like the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which is grounded
in a congressional decision that “federal officers, and indeed the Federal
Government itself, require the protection of a federal forum.” See Willingham v.
Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 (1969). It is also reflected in the Supreme Court’s
observation that allowing federal actors to access federal courts is “preferable in
the context of healthy federal‐state relations.” Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States,
11
352 U.S. 220, 226 (1957). We think this is strikingly so when the federal actor is
the President of the United States, who under Article II of the Constitution serves
as the nation’s chief executive, the head of a branch of the federal government.
The Court’s decision in Leiter is illuminating in this respect. There the
Court held that the Anti‐Injunction Act8 does not bar the United States from
seeking a stay of state court proceedings. Consistent with the discussion above,
the Court recognized that the Act was “designed to prevent conflict between
federal and state courts.” Id. at 225. The Court nevertheless reasoned that “[t]his
policy is much more compelling when it is the litigation of private parties which
threatens to draw the two judicial systems into conflict than when it is the United
States which seeks a stay to prevent threatened irreparable injury to a national
interest.” Id. at 225–26. Indeed, the Court concluded that Congress would not
have intended for the Act to preclude stay applications by the United States
given “[t]he frustration of superior federal interests that would ensue from
8 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (“A court of the United States may not grant an
injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by
Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments.”).
12
precluding the Federal Government from obtaining a stay of state court
proceedings.” Id. at 226.
Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has had occasion to apply
Leiter’s reasoning in the Younger context or to decide “when, if at all, abstention
would be appropriate where the Federal Government seeks to invoke federal
jurisdiction.” Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 816
n.23 (1976) (citing Leiter, 352 U.S. 220). However, nearly every circuit to address
the issue has either held or suggested that abstention is unwarranted in such
circumstances.9 We find these decisions persuasive, at least insofar as they
counsel against abstention in this case. Specifically, we do not believe that
Younger’s policy of comity can be vindicated where a county prosecutor,
9 See United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 707–09 (9th Cir. 2001); United
States v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 656 F.2d 131, 135–38 (5th Cir. Unit B
1981); cf. United States v. Pa., Dep’t of Envtl. Res., 923 F.2d 1071, 1078–79 (3d Cir.
1991) (endorsing Composite State Board in the context of Declaratory Judgment
Act); First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Bos. v. Greenwald, 591 F.2d 417, 423–25 (1st Cir.
1979) (holding that abstention from adjudication of declaratory judgment action
was unwarranted where federal agency was joined as defendant). But see United
States v. Ohio, 614 F.2d 101, 105 (6th Cir. 1979) (holding that, even in “cases
brought by the United States . . . , exercise of . . . jurisdiction must be tempered
by the judicial doctrine of abstention whenever the interest of states in
administering their own laws, as well as in deciding constitutional questions,
would be unnecessarily hampered by federal judicial proceedings”).
13
however competent, has opened a criminal investigation that involves the sitting
President, and the President has invoked federal jurisdiction “to vindicate the
‘superior federal interests’ embodied in Article II and the Supremacy Clause.”
Appellant Br. 13. “Comity is a two‐way street, requiring a delicate balancing of
sometimes‐competing state and federal concerns,” Yeatts v. Angelone, 166 F.3d
255, 261 (4th Cir. 1999), and on the facts before us, this balance tips in favor of
exercising jurisdiction.10
In reaching the opposite conclusion, the district court cited our decision in
United States v. Certified Industries, Inc. for the proposition that “a stay [should not
be] automatically granted simply on the application of the United States”
because it is “necessary to inquire ‘whether the granting of an injunction [i]s
proper in the circumstances of this case.’” 361 F.2d 857, 859 (2d Cir. 1966)
(quoting Leiter, 352 U.S. at 226). This proposition, while true, does not weigh in
favor of abstention. Instead, Certified Industries merely reiterated Leiter’s holding
that the Anti‐Injunction Act neither precludes nor compels a stay of state court
10Our conclusion is unaltered by the fact that the President is represented
by private counsel. The same was true in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982),
and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and those cases nevertheless raised
fundamental questions involving immunity and the separation of powers.
14
proceedings on the application of the United States. The same is true here:
Younger neither precludes nor compels the issuance of an injunction in the
circumstances of this case. Indeed, as discussed below, we ultimately conclude
that an injunction is not warranted.
Our conclusion that Younger abstention is not applicable here is not
intended, in any way, to denigrate the competence of New York’s courts to
adjudicate federal claims. To the contrary, we are confident that New York’s
courts approach federal constitutional claims with the same care and
thoughtfulness as their federal counterparts.
The district court astutely noted that this case highlights “the complexities
and uncharted ground that the Younger doctrine presents.” Trump, 395 F. Supp.
3d at 301. Legitimate arguments can be made both in favor of and against
abstention here. Because Younger’s policy of comity cannot be vindicated in light
of the state‐federal clash before us, and because the President raises novel and
serious claims that are more appropriately adjudicated in federal court, we
conclude that abstention does not extend to the circumstances of this case. We
15
therefore respectfully vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the
President’s complaint.11
III. Injunctive Relief
Having concluded that abstention is not the route to be taken here, we
proceed to consider the district court’s alternative holding that the President
failed to demonstrate his entitlement to injunctive relief. Because the district
court clearly intended its discussion of the President’s request for injunctive
relief to “obviate a remand” in the event we disagreed with its decision to
abstain, we will construe that discussion as an order denying the President’s
motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm that
decision.
A party seeking such relief must “show (a) irreparable harm and (b) either
(1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going
to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships
tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.” Citigroup
Glob. Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35
11As we hold that abstention is not called for because of the reasons above,
we need not address the other arguments against abstention raised by the
President and the United States.
16
(2d Cir. 2010). The district court reasoned that the President failed to show that
(1) he was likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he would suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of the injunction, or (3) an injunction would be in the public interest.
Trump, 395 F. Supp. 3d at 304, 315–16. Because we conclude that the President is
unlikely to succeed on the merits of his immunity claim, we agree with the
district court that he is not entitled to injunctive relief.
The President relies on what he described at oral argument as “temporary
absolute presidential immunity”—he argues that he is absolutely immune from
all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre‐indictment
investigation, and that the Mazars subpoena cannot be enforced in furtherance of
any investigation into his activities. We have no occasion to decide today the
precise contours and limitations of presidential immunity from prosecution, and
we express no opinion on the applicability of any such immunity under
circumstances not presented here. Instead, after reviewing historical and legal
precedent, we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar the
enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce
non‐privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation
pertains to the President.
17
We begin with the long‐settled proposition that “the President is subject to
judicial process in appropriate circumstances.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703
(1997). Over 200 years ago, Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as the trial judge in the
prosecution of Aaron Burr, upheld the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to
President Jefferson. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34–35 (C.C.D. Va. 1807)
(No. 14,692D) (Marshall, C.J.); see also United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 191
(C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,694) (Marshall, C.J.) (explaining that it was “not
controverted” that “the president of the United States may be subpoenaed, and
examined as a witness, and required to produce any paper in his possession”);
Clinton, 520 U.S. at 703–04 & 704 n.38 (endorsing Marshall’s position). Consistent
with that historical understanding, presidents have been ordered to give
deposition testimony or provide materials in response to subpoenas. See Clinton,
520 U.S. at 704–05 (collecting examples). In particular, “the exercise of
jurisdiction [over the President] has been held warranted” when necessary “to
vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution.” Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 754 (1982).
The most relevant precedent for present purposes is United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683 (1974). There, a subpoena directed President Nixon to “produce
18
certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides
and advisers” for use in a criminal trial against high‐level advisers to the
President. Id. at 686. Nixon objected on two grounds: first, that the
communications memorialized in the requested materials were privileged;
second, that the separation of powers “insulates a President from a judicial
subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution.” Id. at 705–06. The Supreme Court
unanimously disagreed, noting that “neither the doctrine of separation of
powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high‐level communications, without
more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity
from judicial process under all circumstances.” Id. at 706. The Court explained
that “a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary
and nondiplomatic discussions” was insufficient to justify non‐compliance with
a subpoena “requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal
prosecution.” Id. at 707, 710. The Court noted that privileges “are not lightly
created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for
truth.” Id. at 710. And this was true even of executive privilege, a doctrine
“fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution.” Id. at 708.
19
The President has not persuasively explained why, if executive privilege
did not preclude enforcement of the subpoena issued in Nixon, the Mazars
subpoena must be enjoined despite seeking no privileged information and
bearing no relation to the President’s performance of his official functions. The
Nixon Court explained that even the President’s weighty interest in candid and
confidential conversations with his advisers could not justify a blanket privilege
that would “cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely
impair the basic function of the courts.” Id. at 712.
Here, none of the materials sought by the Mazars subpoena implicates
executive privilege. Cf. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 384 (2004)
(“In light of the fundamental and comprehensive need for every man’s evidence
in the criminal justice system . . . the Executive Branch [must] first assert
privilege to resist disclosure. . . .”). Nor does the subpoena seek information
regarding the President’s “action[s] taken in an official capacity.” Clinton, 520
U.S. at 694. The subpoena seeks only the President’s private tax returns and
financial information relating to the businesses he owns in his capacity as a
private citizen. These documents do not implicate, in any way, the performance
20
of his official duties.12 We find no support in the Nixon Court’s conclusion—that
even documents exposing the President’s confidential, official conversations may
properly be obtained by subpoena—for the proposition that a President’s private
and non‐privileged documents may be absolutely shielded from judicial scrutiny.
Cf. id. at 693–94 (noting that the President’s immunity from damages for acts
taken in his official capacity “provides no support for an immunity for unofficial
conduct”).13
Tellingly, although Nixon asserted both a claim of executive privilege and
of presidential immunity from judicial process, the Court’s analysis focused
12We note that the past six presidents, dating back to President Carter, all
voluntarily released their tax returns to the public. While we do not place
dispositive weight on this fact, it reinforces our conclusion that the disclosure of
personal financial information, standing alone, is unlikely to impair the President
in performing the duties of his office.
13 Chief Justice Marshall recognized “a privilege . . . to withhold private
letters of a certain description,” but only because “[l]etters to the president in his
private character, are often written to him in consequence of his public character,
and may relate to public concerns. Such a letter, though it be a private one, seems
to partake of the character of an official paper, and to be such as ought not on
light ground to be forced into public view.” Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 192. Here, there is
no contention that any of the documents sought by the Mazars subpoena relate
in any way to the President’s “public character” and so there is no reason to give
them the heightened protection afforded to “official paper[s].”
21
almost entirely on privilege. That the Court felt it unnecessary to devote
extended discussion to the latter argument strongly suggests that the President
may not resist compliance with an otherwise valid subpoena for private and non‐
privileged materials simply because he is the President. Cf. Nixon v. Sirica, 487
F.2d 700, 713 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (“[The President] concedes that he,
like every other citizen, is under a legal duty to produce relevant, non‐privileged
evidence when called upon to do so.”).14
It is true that the President “occupies a unique position in the
constitutional scheme,” Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 749, and we are mindful of the
Supreme Court’s admonition that a court should not “proceed against the
president as against an ordinary individual,” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708 (quoting
Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 192). For example, historical practice suggests that a court may
not compel the President to personally attend trial or give live testimony in open
14 At oral argument, the President suggested that Nixon either did not
think to, or deliberately chose not to, raise an argument of presidential privilege.
That is not accurate. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 706 (noting that “[t]he second ground
asserted by the President’s counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege”
is “that the independence of the Executive Branch . . . insulates a President from
a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution”); see also Sirica, 487 F.2d
at 708 (“Counsel argue, first, that, so long as he remains in office, the President is
absolutely immune from the compulsory process of a court . . . .”).
22
court. See Clinton, 520 U.S. at 692 n.14. In the context of a subpoena, the “timing
and scope” of any production from the President must be informed by “[t]he
high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive.” Id. at 707. And in
holding that a former president was entitled to “absolute immunity from
damages liability predicated on his official acts,” the Supreme Court quoted with
approval Justice Story’s conclusion that the President is not “liable to arrest,
imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his
office.” Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 749 (quoting 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States § 1563, pp. 418–19 (1st ed. 1833)).
But we are not faced, in this case, with the President’s arrest or
imprisonment, or with an order compelling him to attend court at a particular
time or place, or, indeed, with an order that compels the President himself to do
anything. The subpoena at issue is directed not to the President, but to his
accountants; compliance does not require the President to do anything at all.15
15The President resists this distinction, arguing that “courts treat a
subpoena to a third‐party custodian as if it was issued directly to the aggrieved
party.” Reply Br. 18 n.7. We do not think that is quite right. When the objection
to a subpoena pertains to the information sought, there is little difference
between the custodian and the true party in interest, and either may resist
enforcement. See 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2459 (3d ed. 2008) (noting that a party may object to
23
The President argues that this case is distinguishable from Nixon and
related cases because this subpoena comes from a state rather than a federal
court. While the Supreme Court has not had occasion to address this question, it
has noted in passing that “any direct control by a state court over the President”
may “implicate concerns” under the Supremacy Clause. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 691
n.13. But, as already discussed, this subpoena does not involve “direct control by
a state court over the President.” Although the subpoena is directed to the
President’s custodian, no court has ordered the President to do or produce
anything. Nor has the President explained why any burden or distraction the
third‐party subpoena causes would rise to the level of interfering with his duty
to “faithfully execute[]” the laws, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, or otherwise
subordinate federal law in favor of a state process. Cf. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 705 n.40
(noting that although the President “may become distracted or preoccupied by
pending litigation,” such distractions “do not ordinarily implicate constitutional
a subpoena directed to another person if “the objecting party claims some
personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought”). That is why
the President has standing to challenge the Mazars subpoena: because he argues
that his personal records are absolutely privileged from criminal discovery, no
matter who has custody of them. Nonetheless, in assessing the impact of the
subpoena on the office of the President, we cannot ignore the fact that
compliance would not require him to do anything.
24
separation‐of‐powers concerns”). So while the President may be correct that state
courts lack the authority to issue him orders—a question we have no need to
address today—that provides no basis to enjoin the enforcement of a subpoena
issued to a third party simply because the President is implicated in the subject
matter of the investigation.
The President also argues that this case is unlike Nixon because he is a
“target” of the investigation, which carries a “distinctive and serious stigma” that
is not present when the President is merely a witness in another person’s trial.
Appellant Br. 29–30. We are not persuaded by this distinction. The President has
not been charged with a crime. The grand jury investigation may not result in an
indictment against any person, and even if it does, it is unclear whether the
President will be indicted. The District Attorney represents, and the President
does not contest, that the grand jury is investigating not only the President, but
also other persons and entities. Even assuming, without deciding, that a formal
criminal charge against the President carries a stigma too great for the
Constitution to tolerate, we cannot conclude that mere investigation is so
debilitating. Indeed, that contention is hard to square with Nixon. Although that
case concerned a trial subpoena, rather than one issued by a grand jury, the
25
grand jury had previously named President Nixon an unindicted coconspirator.
See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 687. Surely that designation carries far greater stigma than
the mere revelation that matters involving the President are under investigation.
It is true that the Supreme Court did not decide whether it was appropriate for
the grand jury to so name President Nixon, an issue on which it originally
granted certiorari. See id. at 687 n.2. But the fact that Nixon was ordered to
comply with a subpoena seeking documents for a trial proceeding on an
indictment that named him as a conspirator strongly suggests that the mere
specter of “stigma” or “opprobrium” from association with a criminal case is not
a sufficient reason to enjoin a subpoena—at least when, as here, no formal
charges have been lodged.
Nor can we accept the President’s suggestion that a grand jury
investigation is less pressing or important than a criminal trial. It is true, as the
President points out, that the grand jury process does not involve the same
“constitutional dimensions” as a criminal trial. Id. at 711 (citing the Sixth
Amendment’s guarantees of confrontation and compulsory process and the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantee of due process). But the grand jury has a central role in
our system of federalism nonetheless. In the federal context, “[g]rand jury
26
proceedings are constitutionally mandated” for the “prosecutions for capital or
other serious crimes, and its constitutional prerogatives are rooted in long
centuries of Anglo‐American history.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 687
(1972). “[T]he grand jury is similarly guaranteed by many state constitutions,”
id., including New York’s, N.Y. CONST. art. I, § 6. Indeed, “the longstanding
principle that the public has a right to every man’s evidence . . . is particularly
applicable to grand jury proceedings.” Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688 (emphasis
added). Accordingly, the grand jury’s “investigative powers are necessarily
broad.” Id.; see also Cheney, 542 U.S. at 384 (interpreting Nixon to require that
“privilege claims that shield information from a grand jury proceeding or a
criminal trial are not to be expansively construed” (emphasis added)).
We are thus hesitant to interfere with the “ancient role of the grand jury.”
Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 686. Our concern is heightened by the fact that the grand
jury in this case is investigating not only the President, but also other persons
and entities. Assuming, again without deciding, that the President cannot be
prosecuted while he remains in office, it would nonetheless exact a heavy toll on
our criminal justice system to prohibit a state from even investigating potential
crimes committed by him for potential later prosecution, or by other persons, not
27
protected by any immunity, simply because the proof of those alleged crimes
involves the President. Our “twofold aim” that “guilt shall not escape or
innocence suffer,” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709, would be substantially frustrated if the
President’s temporary immunity were interpreted to shield the conduct of third
parties from investigation.
We do not hold, contrary to the President’s characterization, that “a State
can criminally prosecute the President so long as it also prosecutes other people.”
Appellant Br. 37. We have no reason to address that subject, since at this point
any prosecution of any person—as opposed to investigation—is purely
hypothetical. Rather, we hold only that presidential immunity does not bar a
state grand jury from issuing a subpoena in aid of its investigation of potential
crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation
may in some way implicate the President.
Moreover, the President concedes that his immunity lasts only so long as
he holds office and that he could therefore be prosecuted after leaving office.
There is no obvious reason why a state could not begin to investigate a President
during his term and, with the information secured during that search, ultimately
determine to prosecute him after he leaves office. The President claims to find
28
support for his position in two memoranda from the Justice Department’s Office
of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), which concluded that the President may not be
prosecuted. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Asst. Att’y Gen., O.L.C.,
Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal
Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (“Dixon Memo”); A Sitting
President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 O.L.C. Op. 222
(Oct. 16, 2000) (“Moss Memo”).16 Both memoranda, however, are directed almost
exclusively to the question of whether the President may be indicted—an issue,
again, that is not presented by this appeal. Neither concludes that a sitting
President may not be investigated; to the contrary, the Moss Memo explicitly
approves of a grand jury “continu[ing] to gather evidence throughout the period
of immunity, even passing this task down to subsequently empaneled grand
juries if necessary.” Moss Memo, 24 O.L.C. Op. at 257 n.36. We therefore find it
unnecessary to consider whether OLC’s reasoning is persuasive, for even if it is
correct, a grand jury that simply “gather[s] evidence” during the President’s term
16The President appropriately does not argue that we owe any deference
to the OLC memoranda, for “[t]he federal Judiciary does not . . . owe deference to
the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the Constitution.” Pub. Citizen v. Burke,
843 F.2d 1473, 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
29
commits no constitutional violation. That is all that the Mazars subpoena seeks to
do.17
The President argues that the District Attorney has gone beyond the mere
“gathering” of evidence because a subpoena is “a form of coercive process
backed up by the State’s contempt power.” Appellant Br. 35. We find this
distinction unpersuasive. A subpoena is a perfectly ordinary way of gathering
evidence; it strains credulity to suggest that a grand jury is permitted only to
request the voluntary cooperation of witnesses but not to compel their
The President also claims to draw support for his broad view of
17
presidential immunity from a memorandum filed by the Solicitor General in
litigation concerning a grand jury that was investigating Vice President Spiro
Agnew. See Memorandum for the U.S. Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of
Constitutional Immunity, In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled Dec. 5, 1972,
No. 73‐cv‐965 (D. Md.) (“Bork Memo”). The Bork Memo was submitted in
opposition to the Vice President’s motion to enjoin the grand jury investigation
and so could be broadly read to suggest presidential immunity from such
investigation. Bork Memo at 3. Elsewhere, however, the Bork Memo refers more
specifically to the President’s immunity “from indictment and trial.” Id. at 20.
And because the Bork Memo was chiefly concerned with refuting the Vice
President’s claim of immunity, and brought up the President’s immunity only for
the sake of contrast, we are reluctant to read into it an unspoken assumption that
the President cannot be the subject of a criminal subpoena—particularly since
that conclusion would be in great tension with, if not a direct contradiction of,
Nixon and Burr. In any event, even if the Bork Memo could be read to suggest
that the President is immune from any stage of criminal investigation, that is
plainly not the position of the Department of Justice, as reflected in the Moss
Memo and the government’s amicus brief here.
30
attendance or the production of documents. See Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688 (“[T]he
grand jury’s authority to subpoena witnesses is not only historic, but essential to
its task.”). More importantly, the subpoena is not directed to the President and so
it cannot “coerc[e]” him at all. It is Mazars, not the President, that would be cited
for contempt in the event of non‐compliance. Cf. Sirica, 487 F.2d at 711(concluding that an order compelling President Nixon to produce documents
requested by a subpoena for in camera examination “is not a form of criminal
process”). This case therefore presents no concerns about the constitutionality of
holding a sitting President in contempt.
The United States, as amicus curiae, argues that while the President may
not be absolutely immune from a state grand jury’s subpoena power, any
prosecutor seeking to exercise that power must make a heightened showing of
need for the documents sought. But the government draws this test from cases
concerning when a subpoena can demand the production of documents
protected by executive privilege. See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 753 (D.C. Cir.
1997) (considering “what type of showing of need the [prosecutor] must make
. . . in order to overcome the privilege”) (emphasis added); id. at 754 (“A party seeking
to overcome a claim of presidential privilege” must make a showing of
31
“demonstrated, specific need”) (emphasis added); see also Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713(“The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific
need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”). Even assuming that Nixon
imposes a heightened standard in such cases, but see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 386(interpreting Nixon to require subpoenas seeking to overcome executive privilege
to satisfy only the same “exacting standards” applicable to all criminal
subpoenas), that has little bearing on a subpoena that, as here, does not seek any
information subject to executive privilege.
The United States suggests, without elaboration, that “[t]he heightened
standards set forth in Nixon . . . are no less appropriate” and “indeed may be
even more necessary” when applied to the President’s personal records. U.S. Br.
23. We do not see how this is so. Surely the exposure of potentially sensitive
communications related to the functioning of the government is of greater
constitutional concern than information relating solely to the President in his
private capacity and disconnected from the discharge of his constitutional
obligations. Cf. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 696 (“With respect to acts taken in his ‘public
character’—that is, official acts—the President may be disciplined principally by
32
impeachment, not by private lawsuits for damages. But he is otherwise subject to
the laws for his purely private acts.”).
We emphasize again the narrowness of the issue before us. This appeal
does not require us to consider whether the President is immune from
indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the President
may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal
proceeding. We accordingly do not address those issues. The only question
before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of
the President’s personal financial records for use in a grand jury investigation
while the President is in office. With the benefit of the district court’s well‐
articulated opinion, we hold that any presidential immunity from state criminal
process does not bar the enforcement of such a subpoena.
Considering the foregoing, the President has neither demonstrated that he
is likely to prevail on, nor raised sufficiently serious questions going to the merits
of, his immunity claim, and so he is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.18
18 Because the President has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, we need not consider whether he has met the remaining requirements for
the issuance of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 23–24 (2008).
33
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the
President’s request for a preliminary injunction, VACATE the judgment of the
district court dismissing the complaint on the ground of Younger abstention, and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.19
19 Because the President’s complaint seeks only declaratory and injunctive
relief, on remand the district court may wish to consider, and the parties may
wish to address, whether further proceedings are necessary in light of our
disposition.
34