DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Donald J. Trump (the “President”) filed this action seeking to enjoin enforcement of a grand jury subpoena (the “Mazars Subpoena”) issued by Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in his official capacity as the District Attorney of the County of New York (the “District Attorney”), to the accounting firm Mazars USA, LLP (“Mazars”). (See “Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1; “Amended Complaint,” Dkt. No. 27.) The President initially based his claim for injunctive relief on an allegedly absolute immunity from criminal process while in office, which this Court rejected by Decision and Order dated October 7, 2019. See Trump v. Vance, 395 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). On appeal, both the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court agreed that the President was not entitled to an injunction based on his assertions of a temporary absolute immunity from criminal process. See Trump v. Vance, 941 F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 2019); Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (2020). The case now returns to this Court on remand, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s guidance that the President may challenge the validity of the Mazars Subpoena on specific grounds apart from the categorical immunity considered initially and on appeal. (See Dkt. Nos. 47, 54.) In accordance with the Supreme Court’s Opinion, the President has filed a Second Amended Complaint claiming that the Mazars Subpoena is overbroad and issued in bad faith. (See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Dkt. No. 57.) Now before the Court is the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”). (See “Motion,” Dkt. No. 62.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and dismisses the SAC with prejudice. INTRODUCTION “NOTHING COULD BE DONE” At the oral arguments held before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit late last year, the lawyers representing the President, in both his official and personal capacities, advocated the novel theory of absolute presidential immunity detailed below.1 To summarize, the President brought the action in federal district court challenging the grand jury subpoena issued by the District Attorney, who was investigating potential violations of state law arising from private conduct involving individuals and entities associated with the President and covering a period of time predating his election. In that connection, the District Attorney sought certain financial records, including eight years of President Trump’s tax returns. To this end, the District Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on the President’s accounting firm demanding production of the documents. The President’s counsel claimed that a sitting President is absolutely immune from any form of judicial process in any criminal case, and that the President could thus refuse to comply with the subpoena by withholding the materials requested, as well as by directing the private accountant who had custody of the records not to produce them to the prosecutor. To stake out the limitless boundaries of the exemption they asserted, the President’s attorneys gave the appellate judges an example aggressive in its breadth and telling by its extremity. They declared that under their theory of temporary absolute immunity, even if the President (presumably any president) while in office were to shoot a person in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue, he or she would be shielded from law enforcement investigations and judicial proceedings of any kind, federal or state, until the expiration of the President’s term. Short of that time lapse, they argued, “nothing could be done” by the authorities to prosecute the crime.2 As this Court suggested in its earlier ruling in this litigation, that notion, applied as so robustly proclaimed by the President’s advocates, is as unprecedented and far-reaching as it is perilous to the rule of law and other bedrock constitutional principles on which this country was founded and by which it continues to be governed. TO BE SO BOLD Various categorical “nothing-could-be-done” features of the temporary absolute immunity theory the President’s counsel proclaimed in the previous proceedings in this litigation illustrate just how far the notion could stretch and work in practice, why it raises such ominous implications, and why the courts at the three levels of the federal judiciary that reviewed it unequivocally rejected the argument. Though not directly at issue here in relation to an assessment of the SAC, for contextual purposes a review of these contentions may be helpful. As depicted, temporary absolute immunity would encompass every phase of judicial process, whether conducted by federal or state prosecutors, effectively precluding any investigation, indictment, trial, and punishment of an incumbent President. Moreover, the bar would apply to actions arising from the President’s discharge of official duties as well as to conduct relating to his or her private affairs. And the President could claim such immunity even if the underlying events entailed private behavior that occurred before he or she assumed office. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the purported immunity is that in essence it could be transmittable: If the President’s potentially unlawful actions integrally entangled misdeeds by other persons, absolute immunity protection could be passed on to them so as to effectively forestall grand jury inquiry, at the President’s will and behest, not only into the President’s own behavior, but also potentially into offenses that may have been committed by third persons, such as presidential staff, relatives, or business associates, insofar as the suspected wrongdoing also touched upon the President or his or her property or effects. The concept of temporary absolute immunity would bear adverse consequences for the fair and effective administration of justice. Theoretically, if reelected, a President could be in office for eight years, perhaps longer in the case of a President who assumes office to fill a vacancy in the presidency. For a prosecutor to wait until then to obtain vital records necessary for an investigation of potential criminal conduct would risk that key witnesses would no longer be available and that their memories of the events would have significantly dimmed. In that event not only the President but also any private individual accomplices implicated in serious crimes could escape being brought to justice, while potentially innocent persons snared in the scandal may be unable to gain official exculpation. At the core, the argument declares that a sitting President, as well as, derivatively, his or her staff, relatives, and business associates, current and former, stand above the law and beyond the reach of any judicial process in law enforcement proceedings pertaining to potentially criminal conduct and transactions involving an incumbent President. Such unlimited protection from judicial process presumably would apply no matter how egregious the presidential wrongdoing charged — even a murder on Fifth Avenue, according to what the President’s attorney told the appellate court in this case. Moreover, under such a categorical enlargement of presidential immunity, any inquiry concerning how substantially or minimally judicial process would actually bear on a President’s discharge of his or her official duties, the running of statutes of limitations, or the involvement of accomplices and effects on them, would all be irrelevant as well. Rulings by this Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals repudiated the President’s temporary absolute immunity theory.3 On further appeal, the United States Supreme Court similarly rejected the President’s arguments, holding that “the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”4 The Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. Vance did not definitively settle the controversy over the constitutional scope and practical application of presidential immunity from judicial process. Historically, the case represents the latest of a long line of disputes implicating the underpinnings and dimensions of that doctrine. Moreover, the litigation entailed only one component of judicial proceedings, a state grand jury investigation that possibly could implicate various individuals and business entities, potentially including the President, in charges of criminal behavior. To that extent, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as but a prologue to possible future rounds of litigation and constitutional confrontation over the full scope of presidential immunity encompassing other stages of judicial process. Here, the Court elaborates on its earlier reflections on these issues for several reasons. Although the Supreme Court’s opinion roundly denied the President’s invocation of generalized categorical immunity to justify his refusal to comply with the state grand jury subpoena, in the SAC the President has asserted claims the tenor and practical effect of which could be to engender a form of presidential immunity by default. In particular, as detailed further below, the President challenges the validity and enforceability of the grand jury subpoena at issue, claiming that it is overly broad and was issued in bad faith.5 To bolster these arguments, the President, quoting Supreme Court guidance, stresses a point central to his legal theory: the uniqueness of the executive branch and special position the President occupies in the nation’s constitutional structure. Fundamentally, he declares that the President is constitutionally different from the other branches of the government, and thus entitled to corresponding special treatment in the application of judicial process. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds no merit in these claims as they relate to the facts relevant to this action. In the prior proceedings, the President raised substantially the same or similar arguments, which the Court rejected. To that extent, the SAC in substantial part merely reiterates factual allegations made in the President’s prior complaint. The revised pleadings thus prompted a motion to dismiss the action, hence calling upon the Court to devote considerable judicial resources to consider again a fact pattern it believes the parties had thoroughly argued and the Court had substantially addressed. Certainly, as the Court acknowledges below, the President holds a unique position in the country’s constitutional system, and hence merits utmost respect to check unjustified encroachment on presidential powers and duties, and so prevent impairing the President’s ability to discharge executive branch functions. But special standing within the governmental scheme at times could come into conflict with other basic principles; it cannot equate under all circumstances to special privilege and special treatment of the President much greater than legally or practically justifiable, and far beyond the official standards applied to govern the affairs of ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court suggested as much in Trump v. Vance when it rejected the Justice Department’s theory that the President’s claim of immunity from complying with a grand jury subpoena should be evaluated by a heightened need standard, and counseled instead that to challenge a subpoena allegedly issued for unwarranted purposes, a President could raise “the same protections available to every other citizen.”6 Conveying a similar point, in United States v. Burr7 Chief Justice Marshall declared that a President served with a subpoena to produce unofficial records “must stand, as respects that paper, in nearly the same situation with any other individual.”8 The message these pronouncements express is clear: absent evidence that compliance with a grand jury subpoena would improperly influence or impede the executive branch’s performance of constitutional duties, the President is entitled to claim no greater shield from judicial process than any other person. Though mindful of the vital need for balance in the expectations of permissible conduct and attendant liabilities of the President in relation to ordinary citizens, this Court cannot mechanically credit allegations that a particular application of judicial process to the President is necessarily unduly burdensome and motivated by bad faith if, upon thorough and independent review, it fairly and compellingly appears that the claimed imposition on the President lacks plausible basis. Established judicial process commonplace to all persons, accompanied by the inevitable inconveniences, annoyances, and embarrassments that litigants routinely suffer in court proceedings, should not transform automatically into an incidence of incapacitating harassment and ill-will merely because the proceedings potentially may implicate the President. Given force, the relief the President seeks, directly or indirectly, by design or effect, would essentially extend the application of presidential immunity simply by virtue of a mere invocation that it is, after all, the President whose petition to be shielded from judicial process the Court is evaluating. In essence, the filing of the SAC 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. That strategy potentially would enable the clock to run on applicable statutes of limitations, risk the loss of witnesses and evidence and thus possibly foreclose law enforcement concerning any crimes under grand jury investigation. 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. The evolution of presidential immunity to encompass its prevailing expansive bounds would attest, however, that even by way of the roundabout route advanced here, the immunity concept as so applied would pose significant doctrinal and practical implications that merit rigorous judicial inquiry. 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. That course of action embodies national consequences that could impact the constitutional order and justice system all the more adversely precisely because the expedient emanates from the President than it would when an ordinary citizen pursues similar practices.9 Upon meticulous application of the relevant legal standards to the facts presented in the record before the Court, and against a background underlying these considerations, the Court determined that the claims the President asserted in the SAC do not allege sufficient facts to warrant a different judgment. That conclusion holds with special force insofar as granting the relief the President requests would effectively constitute an undue expansion of presidential immunity doctrine potentially implicating adverse public concerns. I. BACKGROUND A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND10 Many of the relevant facts throughout this litigation have been uncontested. The District Attorney is conducting a grand jury investigation that has yet to conclude as to specific charges or specific defendants. The District Attorney has described the investigation as one focused on “business transactions involving multiple individuals whose conduct may have violated state law.” (SAC 11 (quoting Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. at 2420).) On August 1, 2019, as part of its investigation, the District Attorney served a grand jury subpoena on the Trump Organization seeking various documents and records covering the period from June 1, 2015 through September 20, 2018 (the “Trump Organization Subpoena”). Certain of the documents sought by the District Attorney pertained to payments made for the benefit of, or agreements concerning, Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels or Peggy Peterson) and Karen McDougal, including payments or agreements concerning the individuals mentioned above that also involved Michael Cohen or American Media, Inc. The subpoena also sought documents and records related to the President’s and the Trump Organization’s employment of Michael Cohen.11 (See id. 13.) The Trump Organization responded in part to that subpoena by producing hundreds of responsive documents. However, the President’s attorneys objected to producing the President’s tax returns because they did not believe the Trump Organization Subpoena could reasonably be read to request such documents. On August 29, 2019, the District Attorney issued the Mazars Subpoena. This subpoena called for documents dating back to 2011, including tax returns and related schedules with respect to the President and several entities affiliated with the President, in draft, as-filed, and amended form. Apart from the tax records, the Mazars Subpoena sought the same financial records requested by the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the United States House of Representatives in a separate legislative subpoena. These financial records include statements of financial condition and annual statements, engagement agreements and contracts related to preparing the tax returns and financial records, the underlying documents used to prepare the tax returns and financial records, and related work product including communications between the Trump entities and Donald Bender (a Mazars partner) and communications regarding any concerns about the accuracy of any information provided by the Trump entities. (See id. 18.) Because much of the present litigation pertains to the similarity of the Mazars Subpoena and the subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, a brief overview of the House’s investigation will help guide the Court’s discussion. As noted above, the House Committee’s subpoena mirrors the District Attorney’s subpoena to Mazars, except that it does not specifically request tax returns.12 The Committee has “offered several, sometimes overlapping, reasons” why it is seeking these documents. (Id. 36.) The President describes seven of these reasons, from federal legislative prerogatives to federal lease management. (Id.
37-43.) B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Initial Proceedings Before This Court The President filed the Complaint in this action on September 19, 2019. This prompted a round of briefing and a hearing on the President’s initial claims, as set forth more fully in the Court’s October 7, 2019 Decision and Order. See Trump v. Vance, 395 F. Supp. 3d at 291-92. During these preliminary injunction proceedings, the Court considered both the President’s claim of temporary absolute immunity from criminal process and the District Attorney’s argument that the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the suit pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On October 7, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order abstaining pursuant to Younger and alternatively denying the President’s claim for injunctive relief on its merits. See 395 F. Supp. 3d at 301-02. 2. Appeals Arising from This Court’s Decision The President subsequently appealed both of this Court’s holdings. By Opinion dated November 4, 2019, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part this Court’s October 7, 2019 Order. Though the Second Circuit noted that “[l]egitimate arguments [could] be made both in favor of and against abstention,” it ultimately decided that abstention was inappropriate under the circumstances of this case because the conflict between federal and state actors and the President’s “novel and serious claims [were] more appropriately adjudicated in federal court.” Trump v. Vance, 941 F.3d at 639. The Second Circuit affirmed this Court’s alternative holding, though, observing that “any presidential immunity from state criminal process does not bar the enforcement of” a state grand jury subpoena for the President’s personal financial records. Id. at 646. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s Opinion on July 9, 2020. Canvassing over two centuries’ worth of judicial guidance and presidential practice, the Supreme Court concluded that neither Article II nor the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution categorically precluded the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to the President. 140 S. Ct. at 2429. The Supreme Court then proceeded to reject the United States Department of Justice’s arguments that state criminal subpoenas for the President’s private papers must meet a heightened standard of need. The Court stated that a heightened standard would be inappropriate in these circumstances because the President stands in “nearly the same situation with any other individual” with respect to his private papers. Id. (quoting Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 191). The Court added that there was no showing that a heightened standard for state subpoenas was necessary for the President to fulfill his Article II functions, and moreover that the “public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence.” Id. at 2430. However, the Court noted that its rejection of the two foregoing legal standards did not preclude challenges to the Mazars Subpoena on state law grounds including bad faith, undue burden, and overbreadth, or constitutional grounds including influencing or impeding the President’s official duties. Id. at 2430-31. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the case should be remanded to this Court for the President to raise challenges along these lines as he deemed appropriate. 3. Proceedings on Remand Before This Court Following the Supreme Court’s decision, this Court held a teleconference to discuss the scheduling of further proceedings on remand in this matter. (See Dkt. Minute Entry dated July 16, 2020.) The Court heard the parties’ preview of potential arguments on remand and endorsed their jointly proposed schedule for the filing of the SAC, as well as an answer or briefing on a motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 53.) In accordance with the briefing schedule endorsed by the Court, the President filed the SAC on July 27, 2020. (See SAC.) The SAC alleges that because the Mazars Subpoena was mostly copied from congressional subpoenas designed to achieve national and international goals, it is not properly tailored to the grand jury investigation and should be quashed. More specifically, the SAC asserts two claims. First, it alleges that the subpoena is overly broad because it seeks documents that have no relation to the grand jury’s investigation, covers a timeframe far exceeding that of the investigation, and otherwise amounts to an arbitrary fishing expedition. (See id.
