Full name: Trump et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP, 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 congressional subpoena?
The Supreme Court ruled that courts must take into account separation of powers in cases where Congress subpoenas a president for personal information.
This was the first time the Supreme Court has addressed a congressional subpoena for a president's information.
Congress subpoenaed Trump financial data
In 2019, the House Oversight, Financial Services, and Intelligence committees had subpoenaed President Donald Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank, Capital One, and Mazars USA - his accounting firm.
The House says the records are needed to determine the need for tougher laws on ethics, financial crimes, and foreign interference in elections.
Trump sued to block the subpoenas.
Trump: Subpoena would damage presidency
Trump argued that Congress did not have a valid legislative purpose for requesting the information, and the subpoenas violated separation of powers.
Majority rebukes Trump's arguments
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that it is the duty of all citizens to cooperate with requests for information from Congress.
Congress has the implied power to investigate the executive branch - both to measure the effectiveness of programs and in cases of impeachment.
Quoting a 1953 case, Roberts wrote, "Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served."
Limits are necessary
Without limits on its ability to issue subpoenas, however, Congress could assume a disproportionate amount of power, Roberts wrote.
A Congressional request for information must be "related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress." It cannot be for law enforcement, as those powers are assigned to the Executive and Judiciary branches.
Requesting information from the president must account for separation of powers and conflict-resolution mechanisms that the two branches of government have developed over time.
Roberts listed four things courts must consider regarding congressional subpoenas for a president's personal information:
o Is the subpoena broader than reasonably necessary?
o Would the president's information advance possible legislation?
o What burdens would be imposed on the president by the subpoena?
Dissenting, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the only authority Congress has to subpoena personal documents of anyone is through a formal investigation in cases of impeachment.
Case goes back to district court
The Court remanded the case back to the district court to consider the criteria laid out by this decision.
More information
The Supreme Court consolidated Trump v. Mazars with Trump v. Deutsche Bank for this ruling, as the issues were the same.
This case is related to Trump v. Vance, which concerns the authority of a state to subpoena a president's personal information.
For a deeper explanation of the decision, read the LawfareBlog article.