The House committees had to satisfy a more demanding standard to enforce subpoenas for the President’s personal financial records.

E406783

United States Supreme Court case congressional subpoena case separation of powers case

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that set limits on Congress’s ability to subpoena a sitting president’s personal financial records by requiring heightened scrutiny of such requests.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label	Occurrences
The House committees had to satisfy a more demanding standard to enforce subpoenas for the President’s personal financial records. canonical	1

Statements (44)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ congressional subpoena case ⓘ separation of powers case ⓘ
addressesQuestion	how courts should balance Congress’s legislative needs against the burdens on the Presidency ⓘ what limits the Constitution places on Congress’s power to subpoena a sitting President’s personal records ⓘ
aroseDuring	Donald Trump presidency ⓘ
clarified	that congressional subpoenas for a President’s personal information are not automatically invalid ⓘ that the President does not have absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas for personal records ⓘ
concernsOfficeHolder	sitting President of the United States ⓘ
concernsSubjectMatter	President’s personal financial records ⓘ congressional subpoenas ⓘ limits on congressional investigative power ⓘ separation of powers between Congress and the President ⓘ
concernsTypeOfRecords	accounting records ⓘ other financial documents of Donald Trump and his businesses ⓘ tax returns ⓘ
establishedStandard	heightened scrutiny for congressional subpoenas seeking a President’s personal financial records ⓘ
hasDecisionDate	2020-07-09 ⓘ
held	Congress must satisfy a more demanding standard to enforce subpoenas for the President’s personal information ⓘ courts must carefully assess separation-of-powers concerns when Congress seeks the President’s personal information ⓘ courts must consider the nature of the evidence sought and the burdens imposed on the President ⓘ courts must consider whether Congress can reasonably obtain the information from alternative sources ⓘ courts must consider whether the asserted legislative purpose justifies the significant step of involving the President and his papers ⓘ courts must consider whether the subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose and not law enforcement objectives reserved to the Executive ⓘ courts must evaluate whether the subpoena is no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective ⓘ courts must perform heightened scrutiny of congressional subpoenas for the President’s personal records ⓘ
involvesInstitution	House Committee on Financial Services ⓘ Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives ⓘ surface form: House Committee on Oversight and Reform United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ⓘ surface form: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence United States House of Representatives ⓘ
involvesParty	Donald Trump ⓘ surface form: Donald J. Trump Mazars USA LLP ⓘ surface form: Mazars USA, LLP
isReportedAt	591 U.S. ___ ⓘ
legalPrinciple	congressional subpoenas must serve a valid legislative purpose ⓘ courts must ensure subpoenas do not undermine the functioning of the Presidency ⓘ separation of powers requires special considerations when Congress seeks the President’s personal information ⓘ
limited	Congress’s ability to subpoena a sitting President’s personal financial records ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ surface form: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
originatedFrom	subpoenas issued by House committees to Mazars USA, LLP ⓘ
relatedToCase	Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG ⓘ
resultedIn	remand to lower courts to apply the new heightened scrutiny standard ⓘ
voteSplit	7-2 ⓘ
wasArguedOn	2020-05-12 ⓘ
wasDecidedBy	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP → holding → The House committees had to satisfy a more demanding standard to enforce subpoenas for the President’s personal financial records. ⓘ