Full name: Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al.
Stephen BreyerRuth Bader GinsburgNeil GorsuchElena KaganBrett KavanaughJohn G. RobertsSonia SotomayorSamuel AlitoClarence Thomas Note: Court justices do not represent any political party. The color of each judge's name represents the political party of the president who appointed the judge.
Click here for a list of all Supreme Court justices
Can a president ignore a subpoena?
The Supreme Court ruled that a president is not immune from subpoenas issued by a state's investigator.
This was the first time the Supreme Court has evaluated what the standard should be for a criminal subpoena issued by a state to a current president.
State of NY subpoenaed Trump financial data
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance subpoenaed financial data from President Donald Trump's businesses in connection with possible financial crimes committed by Trump's organization spanning 10 years. The investigation also included potentially illegal payments made by Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump sued to block the subpoenas.
Trump: Subpoena would damage presidency
Trump refused to honor the subpoenas, claiming a president enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution - and even investigation - while in office.
Attorneys for Trump had argued that the president would be immune from prosecution even if he were to shoot someone in public.
Trump argued that state criminal subpoenas create diversion, stigma, and harassment - impacting his ability to govern.
Majority rebukes Trump's arguments
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "the public has a right to every man's evidence."
He addressed each of Trump's arguments...
Trump concedes that states are free to investigate presidents with an eye toward filing charges after his term. Therefore, Roberts wrote, his objection to a diversion can only be "the additional distraction caused by the subpoena itself."
Trump claims the stigma of being subpoenaed will undermine his leadership. Even if that were so, "there is nothing inherently stigmatizing about a president furnishing information relevant to a criminal investigation, Roberts wrote. He adds that providing information would not magnify any harm to a president's reputation beyond what a criminal investigation would cause - and Trump conceded such investigations are permitted.
Trump's third claim is that district attorneys and local grand juries might pursue politically-motivated harassment. Roberts writes of protections already in place - including limitations on grand juries. "And, in the event of such harassment, a President would be entitled to the protection of federal courts," Roberts wrote.
Case goes back to district court
The Court upheld the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, "where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate."
More information
This case is related to Trump v. Mazars, which concerns the authority of Congress to subpoena a president's personal information.
For a deeper explanation of the decision, read the LawfareBlog article.