Justice and made please the court, the issues here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the courts use of subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render meaningless but the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that the always informed efficiency of existing laws and they challenge this courts ability to question the constitutionality of the potential legislation they rely upon. The committees obvious overreaches sufficient to invalidate these subpoenas even in a typical case. But the courts in which is not proceed against the president as it does against an ordinary individual. The committees have not even try to show any critical legislative need for the documents these subpoenas seek. It is no secret the relationship between the house represented on the president is frayed but this is new to the first or last time one house of congress will be at alls with the president. The rule the Court Applies here will affect this president but the presidency itself. The court should deny the committees blank check they seek. Mr. Strawbridge, i want to make sure i understand the scope of your argument. Questioningegins by whether the house has any power to subpoena president ial records but you seem, at the end of the brief, to pull back from that. Pressy such subpoenas the outer limits of congress and that there is every reason to doubt whether subpoenaing the personal documents of the president is a necessary incident of lawmaking. Do you concede any power in the house to subpoena personal papers of the president . I think it is hard to imagine that the house is ever going to have the power pursuant to its legislative powers to subpoena the records of the president. Quite frankly, the house has limited powers to regulate the presidency itself. I think its very difficult to imagine a situation where its implied power thats another formulation for what i was just focusing on, difficult to imagine a reason to , is your other words position, does it recognize in a particular case that the congress, the house may have such authority and that in such a case it would be for the courts to decide whether it has exceeded any bounds in that situation . The minimum this court should apply a standard in other cases when there is an attempt to serve process that targets the president. Is someou say there power in the house and you think there is a high standard. I understand the house to concede there is some limit to its authority. It sounds like, at the end of the day, this is another case where the courts are balancing the competing interests on either side. Is that the wrong way to look at it . I dont think we are asking this court to do anything different than it has done in an ordinary case. We are noting that the restraints on the power of congress emphasized in this case because this is a separation of powers dispute. Thank you, counsel. Justice thomas . Justice thomas . Justice ginsburg. So many of these prior cases, it. Was a cooperation for example returns. It gets to be a pitched battle because President Trump is the first one to refuse to do that. Because anhe said audit was ongoing and out seems to be broader than that. Case is reallys sauce for the goose that serves the gander as well. How do you distinguish whitewater when president clintons personal records were subpoenaed from his accountant or even Hillary ClintonsLaw Firm Billing records were subpoenaed. Cases, you say this one is oneofakind but it seems in prior cases it was a much interests. Lision of distinguish all of those cases, watergate, the paula jones case . Your honor, we distinct them in a number of ways. With respect to watergate and whitewater, obviously, those are cases of realist of relative recent vintage and his separation of powers dispute, this court has generally looked back for a much longer precedent for that type of issue that needs to be decided with examples of the encroachment on the and separation of powers. The recent examples are just a handful of them that the house identifies art to recent under that stricture is the court recognized in southwest general. Its important to note that in all of those cases, they actually involved cooperative efforts. As the court recognized below, consent is not the major of constitutionality. None of those were challenged to the scope and power of the legislative committee to request those documents. Thank you, counsel. Justice thomas. Thank you, chief. Counsel, im very interested. Do you think there were any implied powers for the congress to request or to subpoena private documents . I think there might be limited powers in some cases for the house to subpoena private documents although the court has been clear in watkins and another of other cases that congress lacked any power to just inquire. Can you define what you mean by that limited power . We dont quarrel with the general notion that congress has some implied power to exercise its legislative powers. We recognize that in some cases, congress has been able to seek information that would be directly relevant to its consideration of potential legislation. The view of forwardlooking information is aggregated information and not attempt to reassemble a precise factual history. In the d. C. Circuit judge open you in, it says this sort of information or subpoena should be requested under the impeachment power. The is the line between legislative subpoena and an impeachment related subpoena . In kilborn, this court recognized there were two very different powers and when impeachment his properly pending, the ability to subpoena pursuant to impeachment is coextensive with the courts. The Court Subpoenas are not unlimited but that has no bearing on this dispute because the party the committees have waived any reliance on impeachment nor could they. These committees dont have jurisdiction over impeachment. Justice breyer . Followup onke to the previous questions. Are you saying that sam ervins subpoenas which were done on the legislative power at the time of watergate, which was fairly broad, are you saying they were unlawful, that the court should not enforce them, yes or no . As to Justice Ginsburgs question, i would like to know why, since in watergate and other cases, watergate gavecularly, the court contested material involving the very workings of the president ial office to the prosecutor. Why isnt whatever standard applies to personal papers a weaker one, not a stronger one . Last i can answer the question first i think the court cannot refuse to see what others see to quote bromley and the threat in this case of subpoenaing a decades worth of papers not only of the president but his family members, his children and grandchildren as the house has done in this case. Thats an obvious problem with the with harassment and discharging duties 24 hours a day. The president is never in recess and these type of subpoenas are going to be particularly troublesome and burdensome. Are you saying that whatever it is, why wouldnt whatever standard applies to personal papers before the presidency be equal to or weaker than the isndard for material that the workings of the administration at the time . Aside any executive privilege concerns which i understand is not the focus of your question, this court has repeatedly emphasized in kilborn and watkins and everywhere else that congress has power to inquire into the private affairs of any individual. That is distinct from whatever interest they may have informing themselves about the workings of government. That informing power does not extend to the president that informing power does not extend to the president. Branch officials. Are you saying that the Ervin Committee subpoenas were unlawful yes or no . That or not argue address the power of impeachment because its not an issue in this case. It wasnt impeachment. Justice alito . Counsel, are there any circumstances in which a house of congress can justify a subpoena for a sitting president s personal records on the ground that it wants to use the president as a case study for possible, broad regulatory legislation . I think its difficult to imagine for a couple of reasons. Even setting aside the fact that if the president , this court has always required some showing that the information being sought is pertinent. Swath and the scope of the subpoenas issued here creates Serious Problems even in an ordinary case. To directly answer the question,no, the president purple personal papers are not related to anything to the working of government and for the committee to declare him a useful case study is to open the door to all sorts of president ial requests. You could have subpoenas seeking all of jimmy carters financial history simply because he used to be a peanut farmer and they want to case study in agriculture. You could have all sorts of requests for medical records, educational records, any imaginable detail personal records Good Congress has the general power to legislate in lots of areas. Before my time expires, i can ask you one other question i think you said congress has limited power to regulate the conduct of a president. Does congress have any power to regulate the conduct of the president which is in office that is created by the constitution itself and not by congress . The answer is not very much. They apply avoidance principles to avoid having to decide whether congress has attempted to reach the president. The one example in recent history is the nexen versus general Administrative Services case. Even in that case, it was a very limited right regarding president ial documents. One could imagine may be some hypothetical where there would be limited personal papers that might be relevant to a question regarding custody of official documents. But even in that case, the constitutionality of that was not seeking the president s personal papers and that control remains in the executive branch. Justice sotomayor . Council, there is a long history of congress seeking records and getting them as Justice Ginsburg pointed out from president s. Cases, we havese said, especially eastland, that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose. I see a tremendous separation of powers problem when you are talking about placing a heightened standard or a clear statement, the various formulations of this, on an investigation that a committee is embarking upon. I understand your complaint about the Financial Services subpoena on the Money Laundering issue. But are disputing that the stated purpose of the Intelligence Committee subpoena at issue, investigation efforts by foreign and entities to influence the u. S. Political process, and related to the financial records of that, that those were irrelevant to that purpose and thats an illegitimate purpose by the investigative committee, the Intelligence Committee . Taking the relevance question first, yes, even if you accept that there is some legitimate legislation that could be had reached the president because what we are seeking is president ial appliances, when you look at pardon, sir. We president ial finances, are asking for his personal tax returns before he became president. Those are very different things. And we are not asking him to produce it. Some of the subpoenas as far back as 1792 have asked for personal papers of the president while being president. This is before he was president. I dont understand. And they are not his papers in the sense of hes not in possession of them. These are subpoenas to private entities. There are a number of issues there. With respect to the custodian issue, this court going back to eastland, has recognize the ability of a person whose records are in the hands of a third party to challenge them and thats certainly the case here. Those papers have to do with executive privilege questions. They are not personal papers. All those cases have to do with papers that belong to the office of the president. Again, these are personal papers. Briefly, counsel . Eastland did not raise that issue. It was personal papers. The main point i would make his whatever presumption this court has previously applied in cases that involve separation of powers, it should not put a finger on the scale for congresses legislative power in this case. Separation powers cases, the court has declined any presumption that congress that. Legitimate power and this is not the first conflict between congress and the president as many of my colleagues have pointed out. We have never had to address this issue and the reason is because congress and the president have reached accommodations with each other and sometimes one has got more and sometimes the other has gotten more. But there has always been this accommodation seeking. It seems to me what you are asking us to do is to put the kind of 10 ton weight on the scales between the president and congress. Essentially, to make it impossible for congress to perform oversight and carry out its functions where the president is concerned. Youre quite right and what you said before that this is not going to be the last such case. I wonder whether that fact is not not a good reason to reject your proposed rule. Casedont think thats the and for several reasons. The fact that this is the first time that congress has attempted to subpoena this scale and scope of documents from the president. None of the other historical cases involved a direct subpoena for the presence documents the way this one does. It requires this court to draw a line. Its unfortunate the house did get these documents directly from the president but ran immediately to third parties. It limits the number of defenses the president can bring but even on the test, this court has always applied in the scenario, these subpoenas fail every hallmark of a legitimate legislative investigation. Go ahead. Whatever Power Congress has two inform itself as to the workings of government, these documents not relevant to that than that power does not extend to the president who is a separate constitutionally created officer. I think some former president s might contest the idea that these subpoenas go further than have ever gone before and this brings me back to what Justice Breyer has said. These subpoenas are for personal records where the president is just a man. They are not for official records where the president might have executive privilege where we have to worry about the conduct of governance and the way the executive branch operates. As with Justice Breyer, i guess i would like to hear your views on why that wouldnt suggest there is a lower standard here, not a higher one. Because the fact that they seek personal documents doesnt mean they are not targeting the president and the Oversight Committee and the financial the house Intelligence Committee have identified the president in his role as president as one of the motivating factors for their investigation. Noted a broader immunity argument, there are still a need to ensure the president is not going to face undue harassment or distraction and there is a necessity to accommodate him. We think thats best accommodated in this case by applying the demonstrated needs standard. Just as gorsuch . I would like to pick up where you left off. That there is no demonstrated need or substantial legislative purpose. Im sure we will hear the house that there is substantial legislative need. Not defer to the house about its own legislative purposes . To begin, the subpoena power is an implied power and this court made that clear recently. Congress cannot use its implied powers to challenge the structure of government. Requestingchart the president s personal documents is challenging the structure of government. The court did not apply that because it was a battle between the branches as Justice Scalia pointed out in his opinion. Theres simply no need for a presumption on either side whatever might normally apply to thendividual because president has own powers creed by the constitution. This happened in a number of cases. That wet has recognized do not proceed against the president as we do against an ordinary litigant. Whether that was in cheney or the limiting obstruction my question was more practical than that. Supporteds subpoena by a substantial legislative need . Congress iss not really identified with any specificity what actual valid legislation it would enact that directly reaches the president. Even if it had come it has not identified how these documents going upwards of 10 years or unlimited and seeking the most minute financial details about him and his children and his grandchildren, every check, has anything to do with some purpose that would actually be permissible legislation. Of thatany allowance rationale that the house has relied upon with the Financial Services committee is a door that opens to endless subpoenas and harassment any one Party Controls one house of congress opposite of the president. Thank you, counsel. Justice kavanaugh . Thank you, chief justice. Thenixonrgument that needs standards supplied or demonstrably critical standard, explain for me how that would play out in practice in a case like this. In a case where congress is asserting its desire to enact general legislation, i think it will be very difficult. I dont hold out the possibility they could meet the demonstrated need. I dont completely rule out that possibility but i think it is telling that the house devoted all of one sentence to each of these subpoenas, attempting to assert very broadly that they meet the demonstrated need criteria. If there is a situation where Congress Actually had put forth a statute for which they needed some information to decide whether to enact a sta