Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP (19-715)

argument 19-715

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 36m 7 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What makes the subpoenas in Trump v. Mazars unprecedented?

John G. Roberts 0:00

The first case we will argue today is case nineteen seven fifteen, Donald Trump versus Mazars USA. Mr Strawbridge?

Jay Sekulow 0:18

For these cases. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the use of Congress's subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president. And no committee of Congress had even tried to compel production of such a broad swath of the President's personal papers. let alone for the stated purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason that this is the first time a congressional committee has attempted such a gambit. It has long been understood that because Congress's subpoena power is implied. It is auxiliary and subordinate. And when that power is deployed against the president, it must yield absent any long standing tradition or particularly compelling showing of need.

Jay Sekulow 1:06

The committees can satisfy neither condition here and that should decide this case. The committees contend that these subpoenas satisfy the limits this Court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But their arguments would render those limits meaningless. For example, they contend that this court should ignore the committee's avowed improper purpose. So long as they simply tack on a broad reference to potential legislation. They claim that Congress can use subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that will always inform the sufficiency of existing laws. And they challenge this court's ability to even question the constitutionality of the potential legislation that they rely upon.

Jay Sekulow 1:45

The committee's obvious overreach is sufficient to invalidate these subpoenas even in a typical case. But the court simply does not proceed against the president as it does against an ordinary individual. The committees have not even tried to show any critical legislative need. for the documents these subpoenas seek. Now, it is no secret the relationship between the House of Representatives and the President is frayed, but this is neither the first nor the last time that one House of Congress will be at odds with the President. The rule that the court applies here will affect not only this president, but the presidency itself. court should deny the committees the blank check they seek and reverse the decisions below.

John G. Roberts 2:22

Mm Mr Strawbridge, I want to make sure that I understand the scope of your argument. Uh your your brief begins by questioning whether the House has any power to subpoena presidential records. But you seem at the end of the brief to pull back from that. You say that uh such subpoenas quote press the outer limits of Congress's authority, end quote. And that there is every reason to doubt whether subpoenaing the personal documents of the President is a necessary incident of lawmaking. Um, do you concede any power in the House to subpoena personal papers of the President?

Jay Sekulow 3:00

I think it is very hard to imagine that the House is ever going to have the power, you know, pursuant to its legislative uh powers. uh to subpoena the records of the president um because Quite frankly, the House has limited powers regulate the presidency itself. So I think it's very difficult to imagine a situation where its implied power to succeme. That's

John G. Roberts 3:24

another that's another uh formulation for what I was just focusing on. Difficult to imagine, uh uh reason to doubt. Um uh in other words, uh is your position recognized? Does it recognize in a particular case that the Congress, uh the House may have such authority and that in such a case It would be for the courts to decide whether it's succeeded any bounds in that situation?

Jay Sekulow 3:48

Yes. standard that it is applied in other cases when when uh when there is a attempt to serve process uh that targets the president. So

John G. Roberts 4:00

Okay, so so you say you say there is some power uh in the House, you think there's a high standard. I understand the House to concede there is some limit to its authority. So it sounds like at the end of the day this is just another case where the courts are balancing the competing interests on either side.