How did the Supreme Court rule in cases about Trump's business records and the presidency (e.g., Trump v. Vance, Trump v. Mazars)?

1. What the Court actually held in Trump v. Vance — immunity rejected

In Trump v. Vance the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas for private papers and that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude state criminal process; the Court affirmed the Second Circuit and remanded the matter for further proceedings in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (7–2) ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The Court made clear presidents can raise particularized executive‑function objections, but they cannot claim an across‑the‑board bar to state criminal subpoenas ^{[2] [7]}.

2. What the Court actually held in Trump v. Mazars — separation‑of‑powers balancing

In Trump v. Mazars the Court did not issue a simple win or loss for Congress or for the President; instead it said courts must account for separation‑of‑powers concerns when a legislative committee seeks the President’s personal records, vacated the appellate rulings that had ordered compliance, and remanded so lower courts could apply the new standard the Court articulated ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The decision recognized Congress’s authority to investigate but required a tailored, context‑sensitive inquiry before compelling highly personal presidential materials ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Why the Court treated the two subpoenas differently

The Court treated Vance and Mazars differently because Vance arose from a state criminal grand‑jury subpoena and Mazars from congressional oversight subpoenas; the justices emphasized that criminal process and legislative investigations raise distinct constitutional concerns — criminal subpoenas do not automatically intrude on presidential functions in the way that legislative subpoenas directed at the President’s private papers may implicate separation‑of‑powers tensions ^{[2] [8] [6]}. Observers noted the justices signaled different standards would apply depending on whether the subpoena is part of a criminal prosecution or a legislative inquiry ^{[3] [8]}.

4. What the rulings meant in practice — remands, standards, and follow‑up litigation

Both decisions left important factual questions for lower courts. Vance removed the absolute‑immunity shield but remanded for district‑court work on the subpoena’s enforceability and any tailored protections; Mazars forced lower courts to reweigh congressional need against separation‑of‑powers interests using the Court’s guidance rather than simply ordering turnover ^{[2] [6] [8]}. The practical effect was prolonged litigation over the same tax and financial documents rather than an immediate blanket release or permanent block ^{[10] [3]}.

5. Competing perspectives and underlying agendas

Supporters of the Court’s Mazars holding argued it protected institutional separation‑of‑powers and avoided an open invitation for Congress to pry into private presidential records without heightened scrutiny ^[9]. Critics argued the Mazars framework insulated Presidents from legitimate congressional oversight and could be used to delay accountability ^{[8] [6]}. In Vance, civil‑liberties and accountability advocates welcomed the rejection of absolute immunity as preserving criminal process; opponents warned of potential harassment of Presidents by local prosecutors and urged careful application of limits ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Limitations of available reporting and what it does not say

Available sources document the holdings, the votes and the legal reasoning sketched by the Court and commentators, but they do not provide a complete roadmap of how every lower court applied Mazars’ new standard in later proceedings or exhaustive lists of every document ultimately produced as a result ^{[6] [10]}. They also do not resolve tensions about precisely how broadly future courts will apply the Mazars balancing test beyond the immediate remands ^{[8] [9]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

The Roberts Court drew a line: Presidents have no blanket immunity from criminal subpoenas (Vance), yet congressional requests for a President’s private papers require special judicial sensitivity to separation‑of‑powers concerns (Mazars) — outcomes that prolonged litigation and left much to lower courts to implement ^{[2] [4] [6]}. Those twin rulings preserved both criminal process and institutional guardrails while creating avenues for further legal contest over where the balance should fall ^{[3] [8]}.