News and pundits everywhere have already commented on the important part of the SCOTUS decision in Trump v. Vance, in which the District Attorney of New York subpoenaed accounting firm Mazars USA for the President’s tax returns, and Trump sued to quash the subpoena on the grounds that …
… a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause.
Given that appalling assertion – and Justice Kavanaugh’s assertions, prior to his appointment to SCOTUS, that President’s are far too important to actually subject to investigation, it was quite reassuring to see this:
Given these safeguards and the Court’s precedents, we cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause. Our dissenting colleagues agree. JUSTICE THOMAS reaches the same conclusion based on the original understanding of the Constitution reflected in Marshall’s decision in Burr. Post, at 2, 5–6. And JUSTICE ALITO, also persuaded by Burr, “agree[s]” that “not all” state criminal subpoenas for a President’s records “should be barred.” Post, at 16. On that point the Court is unanimous.
As I’ve argued before, the President remains a citizen subject to the same laws as everyone else. That SCOTUS unanimously agrees on this point, even if the final outcome of that particular case was 7-2, is reassuring that some obvious bedrock principles are shared across the political and legal spectrum. There is no blanket immunity available, nor is it justified.
If the President is thought to have committed a serious crime, that’s why we have vice presidents.
