October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1397

Does a significant legal purpose shield mixed-purpose communications from grand jury subpoenas?

the sides that brought the case seek a significant purpose test to protect mixed legal and business advice. the opposing sides demand a primary purpose test to preserve public access to evidence.

Official caption
In Re Grand Jury
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the sides that brought the case argue the significant purpose test protects clients seeking bona fide legal advice.

    the opposing sides argue the public has a right to every man's evidence.

    the sides that brought the case claim the primary purpose test requires impossible disentangling of purposes.

    the opposing sides warn that a significance test creates a sweeping sea change in law.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on the scope of attorney-client privilege. the sides that brought the case argue a significant legal purpose protects mixed communications. the opposing sides argue only a primary legal purpose qualifies for protection.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want a significant purpose test to protect mixed legal and business advice.

the opposing sides want a primary purpose test to ensure public access to all evidence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue a significant purpose test avoids difficult disentangling of mixed communications.

the opposing sides argue a primary purpose test prevents privilege from expanding beyond legal advice.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked how to analyze a purpose that is significant but subsidiary.

Justice Jackson asked if factual parts of attorney memos are covered by privilege.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between private legal advice and public evidence. It determines how much business communication remains hidden from grand juries. It shapes the balance between client confidentiality and truth-seeking.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON