[20200710]LSB10517_特朗普诉马扎尔案：对国会监督的影响.pdf

CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i Trump v. Mazars: Implications for Congressional Oversight July 10, 2020 On July, 9 2020, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions concerning subpoenas seeking access to the Presidents personal financial records, including tax returns. In Trump v. Vance, the Court ruled that the President is not categorically “immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers.” Nor does a “heightened showing of need” have to be made before a state grand jury subpoena can be issued for a sitting Presidents personal records. Thus, the President, though able to present some defenses that are unique to his office, is otherwise treated much like “every man” when called upon to produce evidence in a criminal proceeding. Not entirely so, however, in a congressional investigation. In Trump v. Mazars, the Supreme Court vacated appellate court opinions directing compliance with congressional subpoenas for the Presidents personal financial records, holding that those courts had not sufficiently considered the “weighty” separation of powers concerns specifically implicated by congressional subpoenas