# Trump v. Mazars **Status: stub — expand.** **591 U.S. 848 (2020).** Three House committees subpoenaed the President's personal financial records from his accountants and bankers — third parties, not the President — and the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had not taken adequate account of the separation-of-powers concerns raised by a congressional subpoena for a sitting President's personal papers. Rather than deciding the subpoenas' validity, the Court announced a **balancing framework**: whether other sources could reasonably provide the information, whether the subpoena is no broader than reasonably necessary, how detailed the legislative purpose is, and the burden imposed on the President. The test applies to the President's **personal** records and not to ordinary executive-branch oversight. Its continuing role in subpoena practice is narrower than its fame: it is cited for the proposition that a recipient **retains ordinary privileges** against a congressional subpoena even though the subpoena is lawful — a point the D.C. Circuit repeated in dicta in [[United States v. Navarro]]. ## See also - [[Congressional Subpoena Enforcement Flow]] · [[McGrain v. Daugherty]] · [[Congressional Oversight]] · [[Executive Privilege]]