courts with a set of standards to evaluate the subpoena requests. Majority opinion The Court released its decision on July 9, 2020, by affirming the decision of the Second Circuit and remanding the case for continued review. The 7–2 decision affirmed that absolute immunity to the president is not granted by the Supremacy Clause or Article II of the Constitution. Through those principles, the Court also held that the president enjoys no absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas directed at his private papers and that he is not entitled to a heightened standard for the issuance of such a subpoena. Instead, Trump can rely on the defenses that are available to everyone else like overbreadth and unwarranted harassment. In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court's order stated that "the President may raise further arguments as appropriate" to challenge the subpoena. In evaluating those arguments judges should be "meticulous" according to the Court, but "this does not mean they should use a stricter standard in evaluating them." The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts wrote that former Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle 200 years earlier that no citizen, including the president, may escape the common duty to produce evidence when he is called upon during a criminal proceeding. Roberts wrote, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence'. Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States." Concurring opinion Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that he would have held the case to the standard established in United States v. Nixon, which determined that a prosecutor must have a "demonstrated, specific need" for subpoenaing a President. Otherwise, Kavanaugh agreed with the judgement and added that he "unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate." Dissenting opinions Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate dissenting opinions. Thomas wrote that the majority opinion, which allowed subpoenas to be placed against the president, created an undue burden: "the demands on the president's time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary, and the office of the president cannot be delegated to