Congress has the authority to subpoena thirdparty companies for access to President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. For access to President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States give their attention, god save the United States and this honorable court. The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need, the committee can satisfy neither condition here and that should decide this case. The committees contend of the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has applied to congressional subpoenas. But their arguments would render those limits meaningless, for example, they contend that this court should ignore the committees about improper purpose so long as they tack on a broad reference to potential legislation. They claim that congress can you subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that will always inform this is physician c of laws, they challenge the ability to question the constitutionality of the potential legislation that they rely upon. The committee is obvious overreach is to validate the subpoenas in a typical case, but the court simply does not proceed against the president as it does gives an ordinary individual, the committee has not tried to show any critical legislative need for the documents the subpoenas seek. It is no secret the relationship between the house of representatives and the president is frayed but this is not the first or the last time that one house of congress will be onto the president , the role that the Court Applies will not affect this president but the presidency itself. The court should deny committees and reverse the decisions below. Mr. Strawbridge, i want to make sure that i understand the scope of your argument, your brief begins by questioning whether the house has any power to subpoena president ial records but you seem at the end of the brief to pull back from that. You say that such subpoenas pressed the outer limits of congress authority and that there is every reason to doubt whether subpoenaing the personal documents of the president is a necessary incident of lawmaking, do you concede any power in the house to subpoena personal pipe under papers of the president. I think its hard to imagine that the house is ever going to have the power pursuant to its legislative powers to subpoena the records of the president , quite frankly, the house has limited powers to regulate the presidency itself, i think its very difficult to imagine a situation where its implied power to subpoena. Thats another formulation for what i was just focusing, difficult to imagine, reason to doubt, in other words interposition recognized in a particular case that the congress, the house may have such authority and in such a case it would be for the courts to decide whether is exceeded any bounds in that situation. We have argued at a minimum this court should apply the demonstrated need standard that is applied in other cases when theres an attempt to process the targets to president. So you say there is some power in the house, you think theres a high standard, and understand the house to concede that there is some limit to its authority, is something at the end of the day, this is just another case where the courts are balancing the competing interest on either side. Is that the wrong way to look at it. I dont think that were asking this court to do anything different than it has to do with an ordinary case, were just noting the strains upon the powers of congress are emphasized in this case because this is the separation of powers dispute. Thank you council, Justice Thomas. Justice thomas. Justice ginsburg. There are so many prior cases, there was a cooperation for example, tax returns, every president voluntarily turns over his tax returns, so it gets to be a pitched battle because President Trump is the first one to refuse to do that, initially he said because in order that was ongoing, now it seems to be broader than that. But the oura of this case is really telling to the goose to serve the gander as well. So how do you distinguish the whitewater when president clinton personal records was subpoenaed from his accountant or even Hillary Clinton law firm was subpoenaed, it seems in prior bases, you say this one was oneofakind but it seems in prior cases it was a much greater collision of interest. How do you distinguish all of those cases, whitewater, the jones case. Your honor we distinguish them in a number of ways with respect to watergate and whitewater, obviously those are cases that are relatively recent vintage and in separation of powers dispute and all canning look back for a much longer precedent for the type of issue that needs to be examples of the separation of powers and the recent examples, theres just a handful of them that the house identifies are two recent under that stricture as a recognized in southwest general. Now its also important to note that almost all those cases, i think they involve cooperative efforts and is a recognized below consent is not the major constitutionality, none of those cases is there a challenge to the scope or to the power of the legislative committee in that case to request the documents. Thank you council, Justice Thomas. Thank you chief, counsel, and very interested, do you think that there are any implied powers for the congress to request or to subpoena private documents. I think that there might be limited powers in some cases for the house to subpoena private documents although the court has been very clear in walkins in a number of cases that they back any to power. Would you define what you mean by that limited power. We dont call with the general notion that they have some implied power to exercise the legislative powers. And we recognize that in some cases, congress has been able to seek information that would be directly relevant to its consideration of potential legislation, but as the d. C. Circuit recognized in the select committee and judge livingston recognized below, they will take the view of forwardlooking information and aggregated information and not attempt it reassemble a precise actual history. In the d. C. Circuit opinion says that this information or subpoena should be requested under the impeachment power, what is the line between the subpoena legislative subpoena and in impeachment related subpoena. And kilborn, this court recognizes that their student under very different powers and wimpy impeachment is pending before anybody of the house, the ability to the subpoena is a incentive without to the court. Of court intercourse Court Subpoenas are not limited prethat has no bearing because the party and committees have weighed in ul reliance impeachment nor could these committees, they dont have jurisdiction over impeachment Justice Breyer. I would like to followup on both Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg question, to Justice Thomas question, are you saying that urban subpoenas which were done under the legislative power at the time of watergate which was fairly broad, are you saying they were unlawful that a court should not enforce them, yes, sir no. And as to Justice Gaines first question, i would like to know why since the watergate and other cases, watergate particularly, the court gave contested material involving the very workings of the president ial office to the prosecutor, why isnt whatever standard applies to personal papers a weaker one, not a stronger one. If i can answer the last question first, i think the court cannot refuse to see what others see in the threat in this case of subpoenaing decades worth of papers, not only of the president but of the president s family members in his children and grandchildren as the house is done in this case, those are obvious and problem harassment and infringement of the ability to discharge his duties 24 hours a day, my congress it is never in recess in these types of subpoenas are going to be particularly troublesome and burdensome. You say a weaker case, whatever it is, why wouldnt whatever standard applies to personal papers before the presidency, be equal to or weaker than the standard for material that is the workings of the administration at the time. Setting aside any executive concerns which i understand is not the focus of your question, the answer is because this court has repeatedly emphasized and kilborn in walkins that congress has any power to inquire into the private affairs of any individual, that is distinct from whatever interest they have a half informing themselves about the government, now the informing power does not extend to the president , he generally applies to lower executive Branch Officials and agencies. What about the first question, is the urban can committee unlawful. We do not argue that we do not need to address the power of impeachment because its not an issue in this case. Justice alito. Counsel, are there any circumstances in which a house of congress can justify a subpoena for a sitting president s personal record on the ground that it wants to use president as a case study for possible broad regulatory legislation. I think it is difficult to imagine for a couple of reasons, one is even setting the aside the fact that the as required some showing that the information being is pertinent. I think the scope of the subpoena that is issued here create Serious Problems even in ordinary cases. But to answer the question, no, the president s personal papers are not related to anything having to do with the working of government and to empower the committee to simply declare him a case study is to open the door to all sorts of oppressive request, you could have subpoenas directed seeking all jimmy carters financial history simply because he used to be a peanut farmer and they want to case study on agriculture. You can have request for medical records, educational records, any imaginal detailed record because congress does have the general power to legislate multifarious. I ask you one other question, i think you said congress has limited power to regulate the conduct of a president , does congress have any power to regulate the conduct of the president which is an office that is crated by the constitution itself and not by congress. The answer to that, i think its clear from the case, its not very much which is why it applies to avoidance principles to avoid having to decide whether congress has attended to reach a president. The one example obviously in recent history as the nixon versus general ministry of services case, even in that case, it was a limited right regarding president ial documen documents, one could imagine some hypothetical weather limited personal paper that might be relevant to a question regarding custody to official documents but in that case lets say the constitutionality of the statue was affected and not seeking the president s personal paper that controlled the executive branch. Justice. Counsel, there is a long, long history of congress seeking records and getting them as Justice Ginsburg pointed out from president. In some of those cases we have said, especially that a congressional subpoena is valid so long as there is a conceivable legislative purpose and the records are relevant to that purpose. I see a tremendous separation of powers problem when youre talking about placing a heightened standard or clear statement in various formulations of this on an investigation that the committee is embarking upon, i understand your complaint about the Financial Services subpoena on the Money Laundering issue. But are you disputing that the stated purpose of the Intelligence Committee subpoena at issue investigation efforts by foreign entities that employs the political process. And related to the financial records that those are irrelevant to that purpose and that the illegitimate purpose by the Investigative Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Taken the relevant question first, even if you accepted it, there was legitimate legislation that could be had that reach the president because what were seeking his president ial finances im sorry, not president ial finances, were asking for personal tax returns before he became president , theres a very different thing and were not asking him to produce it as some of the subpoenas that congress through history as far back as 1792 have asked for personal papers of the president while being president , this is before he was president , i dont understand, they are not his papers in the sense of, hes not in possession of them, these are to private entities. Theres a number of issues there, with respect to the custodian issue, this court going back has recognize the ability of a person who scanned the president s records of the third party to come and challenge them, and thats certainly the case here. Those papers have to do with the privilege question and theyre not personal papers, all those cases have to do with papers that belong to the office of the president , again these are personal papers. Briefly counsel. They did not raise the issue, they were personal papers. The main point i would make, whatever presumption this court has applied in cases that involve separation of powers, and should not put any fear on the scale for Congress Legislative power in this case and indeed in numerous separation of powers starting with kilborn it declined to extend any presumption that congress had an illegitimate power, that was true below the d. C. Circuit and in the Senate SelectCommittee Case in the at t cases. Justice kagan. In mourning, i think about this case, this is not the first conflict between congress and the president as many of my colleagues have pointed out and we never had to address this issue, the reason is because congress and the president have reached accommodation with each other and sometimes one is gotten more and the other has gone more, but there has always been this accommodation seeking and what it seems to me youre asking us to do for the scales between the president and congress and essentially to make it impossible for congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions concerned. Youre right when you said before, this isnt going to be the last such case, i wonder whether that fact is not a good reason to reject your proposed rule. I dont think thats the case, and for several reasons, the fact that this is the first time that congress has attempted to subpoena the scale and the scope of documents from the president another historical case involved the subpoena with the documents in the way this one does. I think it requires this court to draw a line, its unfortunate that the house did not attempt to seek these documents from the president or engagement negotiations but ran to thirdparty custodians and enforced president to bring this in one thing that has the effect of limiting the defense that the president can bring but even on the just as the court has always applied in the scenario the subpoenas fail every hallmark of legitimate legislative investigation. Ahead sorry. Whatever Power Congress has to conduct oversight or informed itself to government, these documents are not relevant to that, that power does not extend to the president who has a separate constitution officer. I think some former president s may contest the idea that the subpoenas go further than theyve ever gone before, this gets me back to Justice Breyer is that the subpoenas are for personal records where the president is just a man, theyre not for official records where the president might have executive privilege where we have to worry about the conduct of government and about the way the executive branch operates. As with Justice Breyer, i guess i would like to hear your views on why that ordinance would suggest theres a lower standard, not higher when. A guess because the fact that they seek documents does not mean theyre not targeting the president and the Oversight Committee and the financial house Intelligence Committee have identified the president and his role as president as a motivating factor for the investigation, secondly this court has noted even in Clinton B Jones when it rejected immunity argument to ensure the president is not going to face undue harassment or destruction and the necessity to accommodate him, we think thats best accommodated at a minimum by applying the demonstrated need standards. Justice cours, i would like k up there where you left off, theres no demonstrated need and no substantial legislative purpose, the house is before us and im sure were going to hear from them that there is substantial legislative need, why should we not defer to the houses views of its own legislative purposes. For several reasons, to begin the subpoena power is implied power in this court made clear that congress cannot use its implied power to challenge a structure government, the subpoena targeting the president s personal documents is a challenge to the separatio