We will hear the argument is next in case 19635 donald trump versus cyrus vance. Nno County District attorney and that history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and fortit good reason, e constitution doesnt allow it. Temporary president ial immunity is constitutionally required by article two and accordingly, the supremacy clause to face any authority they have under that state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weaponizeon is 2300 local and or an overwhelming number of them are elected and thereby accountable to the local constituencies. The decision would allow any two giraffes, distract or interfere with the sitting president to the local prejudice that could influence prosecutorial decisions and those who can then utilize the criminal process in the form of subpoena targeting the president. This isnt speculation. It is what is taking place in the subpoena of the challenge. In the argument concluded we asserted they didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome, get a copy almost verbatim the House Oversight committee with an additional 13 words which seek the president s tax returns. How revealing the same language utilized by two congressional committees that subsequently are copied by the District Attorney covering the exact same documents to the same recipients get purportedly for two completely different reasons. Under article two for the high scrutiny standard under nixon the subpoena we challenge today cannot survive at the Second Circuit concluded the president is beingen investigated for potential criminal violations of the state grand jury proceeding issuing coercive criminal process againstsu the president. This he cannot do. Thank you mr. Chief justice. For all that, you do not argue the grand jury cannot investigate the president , do you . We do not seek an injunction in the case involved in joining the grand jury. Weve targeted digitalization of the temporary immunity here to the subpoena. Thats correct. Its okay to investigate except it cant use the traditional most effective device isef typically used to go much further than resisting the subpoena. I dont know why you dont reduce it in its entirety or byy your theory would lead to that. Our position is the criminal process against the president come and targeting the president is a violation in the constitution. T of the constitution. We didnt seek to enforce onno e juncture against theor grand juy investigating the situation. Focused on the distraction to the president but i do not know why we were not persuaded that event the discovery could not proceed. But i would have thought the discovery in a case like clinton versus jonesboro symbol would be distracting as you argue the grand jury proceedings are here. Clinton versus jones in federal court this is in state court. It would raise different issues than the separation of powers and in footnote 13 i 13 absent y direct control by the state court may be different. Yes, counsel. Just a couple of questions. Im interested in whether or not you can point us to some express language of the founding ordering the ratification process that provides for this immunity. There is a couple between Vice President adams and senator ellsworth where they talk about the position to vendor about from north to south and east to west. Inou the previous argument they stated this categorical. The concern over interference in the president s responsibilities was disgusted that is why in the constitution there is a process to deal with it. Does it make a difference in the party . Certainly not hear. Theyve conceded in the brief beast or the president s documents and he has the burden including the review in the councicouncil over any existing privilege in that the documentsp might entail. Thank you. We have said in the grand jury context the public has a right to every mans evidence. Is it your position every mans evidence and there is no privilege involved here. The grand jury to every mans evidence thats one question. Then i want you to answer specifically they held the president wasnt immune from civil suit before they took office. Would clinton have had absolute immunity . The if the case was brought in state court that would raise different issues over local prejudice and separation of powers issue pages 691 and footnote 13 with regards to every mans evidence the court has long recognized the president isnt to be treated as an ordinary citizen. He has responsibilities he is himself a branch of government. He is the only individual that is a branch of government in the federal system, so our position is the constitution itself in the structure and text supports the position they would be temporarily immune from this activity going state well hes the president of the United States. Justice breyer. Justice ginsburg, the president isnt to be treated as an ordinary citizen, and this is a temporary immunity. This is for while the president is in office while you make a point of the attorneys that of course lyndon b. Johnson might be a million, i dont know that they could file the paper. Why isnt it sufficient to apply ordinary standards i gather ordinarily any person that gets a subpoena could come in and say it is unduly burdensome and what counts as unduly burdensome for a doctor that is in the middle of an operation might be very different from a person that is a salesman. So, for the president also factors raised could come in under the title unduly burdensome. So why not just got back. I will show you precisely how this is burdensome. Im going to spend time and effort figuring out what they mean, etc. And if he shows undue burden and lack of connection, he wins and otherwise, not. Thatat is true of every person, but his clinton v. Jones, why not the same here. By the time you are to prepare, review, analyze the requests just in the use cases we have today shows the burdensome nature and then to require the president of the United States. The burden isha being met but to require to respond to each District Attorney that would take a lot of time and he wouldnt be burdened because then you would fit with the burdens are and if you are right, you would win that case. They are saying let them figure out what they are. Doing that establishes the problem in the analysis on a casebycasand acasebycase anr instance in this very case found on page 118 and 119 of the petition appendix is a list of documents you have to meet withh the president of the United States could you imagine just for a moment and to say i know youre handling epidemic right now but i would extend going over the subpoena wanted by the New York County attorney are there at least some circumstances in which they would prevent local prosecutors containing information about a sitting president , the figure of this situation. The situation. Suppose that the prosecutor has a reason to believe the records contained information that isnt available from any other source about whether thirdparty committed a crime as opposed to waiting until the end of the president s term to make the prosecution of that possible stated at least in this circumstance it a would be permissible for the grand jury subpoena tois be enforced . The issues of time and burden are still there. Usb nixon that was the case where the president was a witness and that the documents were asked but in that case it was clear the president was a witness and the independent counsel specifically stated the president wasnt a target so while it is a different case here we are talking o about the criminal process targeting the president. What is the answer that would be permissible if the prosecutor were willing to say that he wasnt a target, whatever that means . It wouldnt mean that itss constitutionally permissible, but i have to be very clear constitutionally in the supremacy clause as to the state Court Proceeding even as a witness that raises serious issues nonetheless. Justice sotomayor. Youre asking for a broadness that is nowhere in then constitution. And in fact the constitution protects against president ial rfinterference in the state criminal proceedings. It wasnt about the president took us to the prosecutions were staged criminal convictions. But i find it all out if you want us to rule that there is essentially an absolute immunity for the state of the Police Powers and we would permit the civil damages case by the lead against which we did. Prosecutors have the ethical obligations with respect to grand jury investigations. It could be prosecuted if they leaked that information. Dont we presume the state courts and statete prosecutors t as they showed in the goodfaith . . Doesnt the president always have the opportunity to show the particular subpoenaa issued in that the president was given the opportunity here and in affidavits i understand was hired under seal for the reasonable grounds for the investigation . Im not sure why hes entitled to more unity or private acts then he should be for public acts. Hes the president of the United States, a branch of the federal government. We only give judicial officers and congressional officers immunity from acts within theirn official capacit. If they dont, if the judges harass someone, we sa we say tht isnsee thatisnt within the jul functions, they can be sued if the congressma congressmen do te thing they can be sued. So youre asking for more broad immunity then anyone else gets. We are asking for the temporary immunity and i would point out the witnesses before the grand jury are not sworn to secrecy they can state that theyve testified that i would also like to point out that there are hundreds of millions of the United States congress and 100 members in the state senate. Ti io why isnt the way to deal with these two things the president is like an ordinary citizen subject to the law but if he can make these usual objections t about harassment and the courts in reviewing those of course should seek seriously the president s objection and treat those with certain pride and sensitivity and respect. Why isnt that the right way to do it . Ay first this is the perfect example here the District Attorney copied for paid him the House Oversight committee verbatim. Discussing theer previous case the nature for counsel to honor each time he could be subpoenaed as a witness or in this particular w o case as a target has serious impact on the president s functions so it is very specific state process to target a president s documents in a criminal proceeding should be prohibited. Justice gorsuch. I would like to return to clinton versus jones and how you have us distinguish that. Yes it took place in federal court but it was a civil case as pointed out there could have been multiple versions of that across the country so how do we avoid that conclusion subject to special immunity . The nature of the case we are dealing with here is not in a vacuum itself there are other cases the president deals with at the same time. What made this situation is multiple litigation going s on. The supremacypr clause issue as the court alluded to clinton against jones that very reason the idea local president , the idea we would wait until more we are already on three subpoena involving multiple subpoena which covers the same documentation. So that proves the point we are here the house is asked for documents now the District Attorney is asking d for. We are seeing that an realtime. How is this more burdensome than what took place with clintonve versus jones . The civil case defendant in the principal in a criminal case by the state district. I will stop you there while they were serving now seeking reference and thirdparty. But those are hisis records the custodian of the president s tax returns these are the president s documents they are asking and what is to stoph them . Or for that matter asking him to appear before a grand jury the official versus the unofficial is the decidingg factor and that process here interferes with the duty but on that official distinction then what stops the local District Attorney from having the president testify . Justice kavanaugh. Thank you mr. Chief justice. Good afternoon mr. Sekulow following up with Justice Gorsuch to explain the rationale for having one rule for criminal and another for civil just assume there was one criminal investigation. Thats it tims and just explaine rest with a different rule. Its not that its a different rule but in this case its within the context that you have article two concerns and the supremacy clause issue against jones that creates the t issue. The criminal nature is very distinct from a civil case to be clear. The idea that you are the a subject or target of a criminal case being brought against he was very different than a civil suit were at the end of the day it results in monetary damages r. Not a loss of liberty. There is a big distinction between civil and criminal cases in that regard and that impacts the standard upon which the court should look at the president ss temporary immunity. We are talking about stopping a process targeting the president this subpoena targets the president doesnt we are talking about it is that burden. I think the other side the position you are articulating is more consistent with Justice Breyer clinton versus jones versus the majority opinion that the judges are hearing a private civil damages act may not have any that significantly distract the president from official duties but that language is not in the majority opinion. What do you think how we should discuss that. Two very distinct process and then a civil context and civil proceeding the general rules of civil procedure in the court the process goes forward and the judges can take into consideration. This is a state proceedings crw educated by the local District Attorney against the sitting president of the unitedti states so our concern is it is a feature of the proceedingg itself that the subpoena targeting the president and his records. How do you deal with the statute of limitationsns quick. That is decided under new york state law there will be procedures utilized if in fact they were elected to start a process like that. Thank you counsel. Mr. Chief justice may it please the court at a minimum a local prosecutor needs the personal records to subpoena them for two reasons. First as the court suggested state proceedings can go to the presidency those across the country places more emphasis on local interest and National Federal prosecutor against National Interest including the president s need to do the job. Second, ordinary grand jury rules thats why it nixon there was a federal prosecutor for specific needs for the information sought. Local prosecutor should at least be required for the standard as the court has said what it ever be required to proceed against the president as an ordinary citizen here the District Attorney is trying to meet the special needss standard. We just heard arguing in favor of absolute standard that your position is add minimum the special needs test must be met of course mr. Sekulow represents mr. Trump you are arguing for the United States so what is wrong with mr. Trumps position . I actually think mr. Sekulow makes a strong argument on the immunity issue. We dont think the court needs to address this at least until nde prosecutor argues to attempt to meet that special need a bet they are not arguing that before the court so there is no reason for the court to address that in question and the courts ordinary processes to have those more broader questions when possible we think the special needs standard will fully resolve at this stage of the proceeding. In a typical case with those allocations to say they are implicated you would say ur ao before a court they would examine the criteria that you talk about i gather is the test of nixon and under mr. Sekulow that would not be legal before the court to say he is a means of the court has no business addressing a case that is a significant differenceimmu. In both instances the argument would beta available to make that argument to the article to federal court and if the court found that prosecutor had not met the special needs standard it would it need to address the Broader Community question. If it did find they met the special needs standard it would then have to and all we are saying the special need issue is addressed at the threshold there is no need to address the Broader Community question. Thank you counsel Justice Thomas. Yes. You mentioned the burden on the president. I would determine when is it too much . There are a couple of things. First, the fact we are in state court is significant local prosecutors will put more emphasis on local interest ande national that is the manner of elections by relatively homogenous communities and in new york state is would add where they are elected in a similar way. They are you already have local prejudice and special needs standard ensures it is available to have the lower interest against the national including the need to do his job. Second, also the ordinary grand jury rules with exercising his authority was are not designed to are sufficient since ordinary grand jury rules the District Attorney never has to make a showing of need instead the burden is on the witness to show the subpoena could havean no relevance to any possible subject of an investigation that is a perfectly appropriate standard in the ordinary case but the reason why nixon applied it above and beyond the ordinary rule of criminal procedure is the court recognizes the president is the sole personnt to all powers being vested so a measure of protection above and beyond the ordinary rules and the special needs standard is a measure two. Back to Justice Breyers prediction that the court would need to develop special protective procedures for the president in the context of litigation like this. Justice ginsburg. You said the states are subordinate and sovereign subject to the sup