Trump v. Vance
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Trump v. Vance and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Trump v. Vance.
In Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court addressed whether a sitting President is immune from state criminal subpoenas. The Court ruled that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for such subpoenas. This decision clarifies the balance of power between state and federal authorities concerning presidential immunity.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Trump v. Vance.
The Court held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Trump v. Vance. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Trump v. Vance
The case primarily concerns the scope of the President's constitutional authority and limits on presidential action, particularly regarding immunity from state criminal subpoenas.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Trump v. Vance
The case addresses the balance of power between state and federal authorities, particularly the ability of state legal processes to impact federal executive functions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The President argues that the Supremacy Clause gives a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with those subpoenas would categorically impair a President's performance of his Article II functions.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Trump v. Vance
The Court's decision involves the power of federal courts to review and potentially invalidate state legal actions that affect the President.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Trump v. Vance that support the summary and concepts above.
"Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President."
"[T]he public has a right to every man's evidence."
"The President's unique duties as head of the Executive Branch come with protections that safeguard his ability to perform his vital functions."
