Which SCOTUS cases addressed former President Trump’s business records and the presidential immunity arguments?

1. Trump v. Vance — the business-records fight that reached the Court

The first major Supreme Court decision squarely tied to Trump’s business records was Trump v. Vance, in which the Court rejected the former president’s claim that he was immune from a state grand jury subpoena seeking his financial and business records, holding that the presidency does not categorically bar state criminal subpoenas and that a grand jury subpoena must be evaluated under ordinary standards rather than special presidential immunity rules (the decision is discussed as precedent in coverage of later immunity arguments) ^[1].

2. Trump v. Mazars — Congress, subpoenas and contours for third‑party records

Closely related to the “business records” theme is Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, a 2020 ruling that set a heightened test for congressional subpoenas seeking a president’s private financial records — a decision the Court later cited as part of the doctrinal landscape instructing lower courts how to weigh separation-of-powers concerns when third parties (banks, accountants) are compelled to turn over a president’s records, and which has informed both defenses and prosecutorial strategies about scope and process for obtaining Trump’s records ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Trump v. United States — the immunity ruling that reshaped prosecutions

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States concluded that former presidents enjoy at least presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” and absolute immunity for official acts within the president’s exclusive constitutional authority, while reaffirming that unofficial acts are not immune — a 6–3 decision that required lower courts to parse which allegations are “official” and therefore potentially shielded, and which are not ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

4. How the business‑records and immunity cases interact in practice

Those three rulings operate as a trilogy of constraints and pathways: Vance permits judicial compulsion of records under ordinary subpoena standards; Mazars requires careful separation-of-powers balancing when Congress seeks records; and Trump v. United States forces lower courts to separate “official” from “unofficial” conduct before prosecutions can proceed, a task that can delay trials while records and testimony are sifted to determine whether the alleged acts are protected — a dynamic many observers warned would likely postpone high-profile trials until after the 2024 election ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

5. Competing readings, politics and the agendas behind the legal framing

Legal scholars and advocacy groups diverged sharply: defenders of the immunity ruling framed it as fidelity to constitutional structure and needed protection for presidential decision‑making, while critics — including the ACLU and Constitutional Accountability Center — argued the majority created new and dangerous shields for misconduct and that the Court’s approach invites years of litigation insulating a powerful office from accountability; media coverage and commentary also tied the rulings to electoral consequences, noting that the immunity decision in particular all but ensured delays in trials that might have affected the 2024 campaign ^{[7] [8] [6]}.

6. Limits of this report and where questions remain

This account synthesizes Supreme Court opinions and contemporaneous reporting but cannot here adjudicate every contested legal claim or predict how lower courts will apply the immunity test to the factual record in each indictment; the Court itself refrained from deciding immunity’s application to specific counts in the indictments and directed lower courts to determine whether particular actions are “official,” leaving significant litigation and factual inquiry to unfold ^{[2] [4]}.