Rubin v. United States

Background

The Solicitor General applied for a stay on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert E. Rubin, seeking to block enforcement of subpoenas directed at people who protect the President. The Secretary claimed a “protective function privilege” that would shield those protectors from testifying. Lower courts considered the dispute, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion against the Secretary, and the Secretary asked a Justice to pause enforcement while the matter awaited possible higher-court review.

Reasoning

The Justice considered the narrow question whether to grant a temporary pause. He required the applicant to show irreparable harm if the subpoenas were enforced and a realistic chance that the full Court would later reverse the Court of Appeals. The Justice found no irreparable harm because disclosure of past events would not destroy future protection relationships and concluded the equities did not favor a pause. He also concluded the applicant had not shown a likelihood the Court would reverse the Court of Appeals, calling that court’s opinion cogent and correct. The stay request was denied.

Real world impact

As a result, the subpoenas may be enforced and testimony before a grand jury is more likely to proceed while higher-court review is considered. This ruling is a temporary procedural decision and does not finally resolve whether the protective-function privilege exists; that question can still be decided later on the merits.