Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome. Yet they copied almost verbatim the House OversightCommittee Subpoena with an additional 13 words to seek the president s tax returns. How revealing the exact same language utilized by two congressional committees would subsequently be copied by the County District attorney covering the exact same documents and sent to the exact same recipients get reportedly for two completely different reasons. Under article number two for the high scrutiny standard under nixon, the subpoena we challenge today cannot survive. As the Second Circuit concluded and the da represents, the president is being investigated for potential criminal violations in a state grand jury proceeding with the local issuing coercive criminal process against the president. This, he cannot do. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. You do not argue that the grand jury cannot investigate the president , do you ask we do not seek to have an injunction emboldened by the Vice President and the grand jury. Weve targeted that utilization here to the subpoena that is correct. In other words it is okay for the grand jury to investigate except it cant use the most effective device typically used for just a subpoena. Your theory would seem to go much further than resisting the subpoena and i dont know what yowhyyou dont resist the investigation in its entirety. Our position is the criminal process against the president , and that is what we are talking about before the court. Targeting the president it is a violation of the constitution and we do not seek to enforce against the grand jury investigating the situation with the president. Is why we were not persuaded that the distraction and that case meant in the case like clinton versus jones you argue that the proceedings are here. Clinton versus jones were in federal court and this was in state court. This is a criminal case it would raise different issues and separation of powers. Im wondering whether or not you can point us to some express language of the founding ordering the ratification process that provides for this. Well, theres a couple. There is a colloquy between the Vice President , ultimately Vice President adams and senator ellsworth when they talk about processing and took the position any process against the president would be constitutionally problematic. It would interfere in the president s responsibilities and as this court in the previous argument said the burdensome nature of this is categorical. You cant just look at the one subpoena. The potential for 2300, just 1 . 23 issuing a process. But the concern over interference from the founding and the responsibilities was discussed and that is why in the constitution there is a process to deal with it. Does it make a difference when the subpoena goes to a thirdparty . Certainly not here. Number one, the respondents are either forfeit or awaiting. They have conceded that they are seeking the president documents. These are the president documents. He is the real party in interest and he has the burden including review with his counsel over any existing privileges and with the documents like detail. We have said in the grand jury context. Every mans evidence faithful persons protected by privilege. They were not immune from the civil suits. They said that if the cas case m it would raise different issues. This court has long recognized that the president isnt to be treated as an ordinary citizen. Hes the only individual that is in the system so to our position is the constitution itself both in structure and text supports the position that the president would be temporarily immune from this activity going state proceeding while he is the president of the United States. Every mans evidence is food to the president. Its not that it excludes, but he isnt to be treated as an ordinary citizen and this is a temporary immunity. Its while the president is in office and that is required by the constitution. England v. Jones there might be a million contents of thousands who might bring lawsuits perhaps unfounded. I gather ordinarily any person that gets a subpoena can come in and say it is unduly burdensome. A doctor that is in the middle of an operation might be very different from a person that is a salesman an at all the factors you raise could come in under the title unduly burdensome so why not just go back. I will show you precisely how this is burdensome. Im going to spend time and effort working all these things out, figuring out what they mean, etc. And if he shows the undue burden, he wins and otherwise, not. That is true with every person. That is clinton v. Jones. Why not the same here. The hypothetical you gave i think proves the point by the time you are to prepare, review, analyze the greatest requests. To require the president of the United States as youve raised in your opinion and in clinton versus jones, that burden is being met just by us being here. But to require the president to have to respond to every single state District Attorney and he would hire a lawyer to list with the burdens are. That wouldnt take a lot of time. And then he wouldnt be burdened because you could go in and save the burdens are. And if you are right, you win that case. They say on the other side there are no burdens . Send it back and let them figure out what they are. For instance in this very case on the subpoena found on 118 and 119 of the petition appendix is a list of documents. To meet with the president of the United States. Could you imagine just for a moment, Justice Breyer, lets assume the president were to hire me, but im going to call the president of the United States today and say i know you are handling a pandemic right now for the United States, but i need to send a couple or two or three hours going over a subpoena of documents wanted by the new york County District attorney. Are there at least some circumstances in which the constitution would permit a local prosecutor to subpoena the records containing information about the president . The prosecutor has good reason to believe that the records contained information that isnt available for any other source about whether a thirdparty committed a crime as opposed to waiting until the end of the president s term would make the prosecution of the time impossible or at least very difficult. What you say that at least in that circumstance it would be permissible for the grand jury subpoena to be enforced . In the state Court Proceeding, the issue is of time and burden are still there. In u. S. V. Nixon, that is the case when the president was a witness and the documents were asked for and the court said it would be handed over. It was very clear the president was a witness and the attorney, the independent counsel specifically stated to the court he wasnt a target. So while it is a different case the same constitutional principle would be in play. Its a criminal process targeting. Was the answer that that would be permissible if the prosecutor were willing to say it is permissible and it woulit wouldraise the issue fore president to consider. It adds to the state Court Proceeding here and we think that even as a witness that raises serious issues im obviously a different case than this but serious issues nonetheless. Thank you, counsel. Justice sotomayor. Council, it seems that you are asking for a broad immunity Justice Thomas pointed out that is nowhere in the constitution and in fact the constitution protects against president ial interference with state criminal proceedings it doesnt allow the president to apply them for the state prosecutions or convictions. And yet i find it odd you want us to rule that there is essentially an absolute immunity from investigative powers at the height of the States Police power and that we would permit a civil damages case by a private litigant, which we do. Prosecutors have ethical obligations with respect to grand jury investigations to keep those investigations secr secret. Dont be presumed state courts and prosecutors act as they should and in good faith . Doesnt the president always havhas the opportunity to show t a particular subpoena in fact was issued . The president was given the opportunity here and an affidavit i understand was filed set forth the grounds for the investigation. Im not sure why he is entitled to more immunity for the private actress that he should be for public acts. Hes the president of the United States come he is a branch of the federal government. We give judicial and congressional offices immunity for access within their official capacity. If they dont come if judges sexually harass someone, weve said that dissent within judicial functions, they can be sued. If congress do the same thing, they can be sued. So, my question still comes you are asking for a broad immunity than anyone else gets. We are asking for a temporary do we have time for a brief answer . We are asking for temporary immunity and i would point out under the new york state law witnesses before the grand jury are not sworn to secrecy. They can state that they testified about the nature of the testimony was and i would also like to point out there are hundreds of members of the United States congress in 100 members of the United States senate and there is one president. Thank you. , mr. Secretary, decided that a number of times and made the point which we have made the president cannot be treated just like an ordinary citizen, but its also true indee indeed a fundamental precept of the Constitutional Order but a president isnt above the law. From the first day chief Justice Marshall told Thomas Jefferson he could be subpoenaed and examined as a witness and required to produce papers. So i guess going back to Justice Breyers question, why isnt the way to deal with these two things that the president is special or that the president is like an ordinary citizen and that hes subject to the law is to say the president can make these usual objections that a recipient can make about harassment or that burden and the court in reviewing those of course should take seriously the president s objections and treat them with a certain kind of sensitivity and respect due to somebody that is a branch of government. Why isnt it the right way to do with . I think the case here is a perfect example. Example. The District Attorney copied to the House Oversight committee and ways and Means Committee verbatim. We were just discussing indicates the nature of that burden for the council the president hiring counsel for each time he could be subpoenaed as a witness or in this particular case as a target and raise a serious impact on the president article two functions so we think the categorical approach, and its very specific. State process as to targeting the president s documents in a criminal proceeding should be prohibited. Justice gorsuch. Council, i would like to return to the question of clinton versus jones and how he would have us distinguish back. Yes, it took place in federal court, that it was a civil case and as it has been pointed out, others, there could have been multiple versions of that and multiple different districts across the country. What is different about that and how do we avoid the conclusion that president wasnt subject to some special immunity. The nature of the case that we are dealing with here is not in a vacuum itself. There are other cases the president is dealing with the ae same time. So the situation we have multiple litigation going on including with the new york attorneattorney general, so i te supremacy clause here is pronounced as the court eluded to in clinton v. Jones for that very reason. This idea that the local prejudice would impact the president. So the idea that we would wait until there are more of these, we are already here on the three or four subpoenas involving multiple subpoenas much of which govern the same documentation. So, i think that in fact, justice gorsuch, it proves the point we are here because the court asked for documents now the District Attorney is asking for. So, we are seeing that in real time, the nature of what is happening here. How is this more burdensome than what took place in clinton versus jones . I guess im not sure i understand. The big thing is between the defendant and the civil case and the principal in a criminal case hereby state district let me stop you there. There is the deposition of the president while he was serving. Here they are seeking records from third parties. Tha they are his records from third parties, justice gorsuch. Its the agent custodian of the president s tax returns on the president s statement of financial conditions so these are the president s documents coming up with us to stop them from seeking the deposition of the president or for that matter asking the president to appear before the grand jury because if the official versus the unofficial is the deciding factor in our view is the process here interferes with the president of official duty that is going to be an unofficial distinction put in place, then what stops the local District Attorney from having the president testify, having president tried . Just assume there is one criminal investigation, that is it in the rationale for a different role. Is not that its a different role because in this case because assume in the context of estate proceeding, your article two concerns in the supremacy clause issues as the court alluded to in clinton versus jones or create the issues of concern about local prejudice. But the criminal nature of it creates a burden very distinct from a civil case. To be clear. The idea that you are the subject or target of a criminal case being brought against you is very different than of civil suit were at the end of the date a result of monetary damages, not a loss of liberty. So theres a big distinction between the civil case in a criminal case in that regard, i think the impacts the standard upon which this court should be looking at the president s temporary meaning, were talking about stopping a process, targeting the president , the subpoena targeting the president , thats what were talking about here, it is operating thats our concern. The other side says the position youre articulating is about mark consistent then with clinton versus joan which the majority which is private civil damages action against a sitting president may not issue orders that consistently distracted president from its official duties. Its pointed out that the language is in the majority opinion, what do you think about how we should assess that. Civil discovery versus criminal process are two distinct processes. And in the civil context in the civil proceeding, we have the federal rules of federal procedure in the federal court that govern how the process goes forward and federal judges can take integrate his consideration in dealing with the president , this is estate proceeding, initiated by the local District Attorney against a sitting president of the United States, our concern here is the nature of the proceeding itself is why we view categorically that a subpoena targeting the president and his records which violate. How do you do was statute of limitations issues. Statute of limitation issues are decided under new york state law and under new york state law there would be procedures that can be utilized if in fact the d. A. Were to elect and discard a process like that and if there were be action. Thank you counsel. Thank you mr. Chief justice. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice maia appease the court. A local prosecutor should have to show he really needs a president s personal records to subpoena them for two reasons. First as the court suggested in clinton against jones, state proceedings can pose a greater threat to the presidency. The 2300 prosecutors across the country necessarily place more often since on local interest the National Ones, specialneeds standard ensures that the federal court balancer prosecutors local need for information against National Interest including the president s need to do his job. Second, ordinary grand jury rules are not designed to protect article two interest, thats why in nixon, the court told the federal prosecutor had to show a demonstrated specific need for the information sought. The local prosecutor should at least be required to meet the same standards as the court has repeatedly said, in no case of this kind would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary citizen. And here the District Attorney hasnt tried to meet the special needs standard. Francisco we just heard mr. Secular argue in favor of an absolute standard, no circumstances no how. Your position as you say at a minimum of t