Overview
In a 103-page opinion, Judge Marrero rejected President Trump's latest attempt to block a grand jury subpoena issued to Trump's accounting firm by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. In July, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Trump could not obtain injunctive relief based on an assertion of categorical immunity from criminal process while in office. (See our previous coverage here.) On remand, Trump argued that the subpoena was overbroad and issued in bad faith.
Dismissing the amended complaint, Judge Marrero found that "the filing of the [amended complaint] to assert claims and reargue issues substantially addressed in earlier proceedings would prolong the President's noncompliance with the grand jury's demand for the documents in dispute."
In this respect, the President’s response embodies a novel application of presidential immunity to protect the executive branch from judicial process. At its core, it amounts to absolute immunity through a back door, an entry point through which not only a President but also potentially other persons and entities, public and private, could effectively gain cover from judicial process. ... This Court would be remiss in performing its judicial duties if it failed to call out by name, and point to the far-reaching effects on the fair and effective administration of justice and the separation of powers, that the President’s litigation strategy would bear.
