This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-financial-records/2020/07/09/8f274352-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now
(about 5 hours later)
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s assertion that he enjoys absolute immunity from investigation while in office, allowing a New York prosecutor to pursue a subpoena of the president’s private and business financial records. The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s bold claims of immunity from local law enforcement and congressional investigators, delivering a nuanced and likely landmark lesson on the separation of powers and limits of presidential authority.
In a separate case, the court sent a fight over congressional subpoenas for the material back to lower courts because of “significant separation of powers concerns.” Since both cases involve more work at the lower level, it seems unlikely the records would be available to the public before the election. In one of two lopsided 7-to-2 rulings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected Trump’s argument that he did not have to comply with a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and said Vance had authority to pursue the president’s personal and business financial records.
Combined, the decisions offer the court’s most detailed examination of presidential power and congressional authority in decades, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority in both 7-to-2 decisions. The court seemed to avoid some tough questions in an attempt to achieve greater agreement.
All members of the court rejected a sweeping claim of immunity promoted by the president and his lawyers.
“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’ ” Roberts wrote in the New York case, citing an ancient maxim. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. VanceRead the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. Vance
Trump nominees Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcomes of the cases. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented. In the other, the court said the restrictions the president proposed on congressional demands for private, nonprivileged information “risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.”
Trump reacted angrily, and inaccurately, on Twitter: “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!” Still, the court put a hold on the congressional subpoenas, suggesting overreach on the part of the lawmakers. The court sent the cases back to lower courts where, the justices said, Trump also could challenge the specifics of Vance’s inquiry.
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. MazarsRead the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. Mazars
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in a statement: “This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law. Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.” On the whole, the rulings were a disappointment for those who hoped to see the president’s long-withheld financial records before November’s election. But perhaps the court’s more lasting message came in the first sentence of Trump v. Vance: “In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’ ” Roberts wrote, citing an ancient maxim. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”
The president’s lawyer Jay Sekulow said in a statement, “We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s tax records. We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.” Trump’s nominees to the court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined Roberts and the court’s four liberals in the outcome of both cases. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The majority said that while Trump could not avoid a subpoena, he could challenge the specifics of it. And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch emphasized that in their concurring opinion, noting the court “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.” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the decisions a victory for the president, but Trump did not seem to agree, saying he was the victim of a “political prosecution” and that he was being treated worse than other presidents.
In the congressional case, the court tried to strike a balance between the chief executive and Congress, while lamenting that in the past, such conflicts were most often worked out between the political branches. “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!” Trump tweeted after the rulings.
The court reinforced Congress’s broad investigative power, but said it is not limitless and must be more targeted when it comes to subpoenas for a president’s personal information. Trump says he’s a victim of ‘political prosecution’ after Supreme Court rulings
Without limits, the court warned, “Congress could declare open season on the President’s information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions.” In fact, although the court’s examination of presidential power is rare, Thursday’s decisions referenced the rulings that forced President Richard M. Nixon to turn over White House recordings in a criminal investigation, and President Bill Clinton’s unsuccessful attempts to put off responding to a civil suit.
The majority came up with a new four-part test for courts to analyze the validity of subpoenas aimed at the president. As in those cases, the current president’s nominees to the court ruled against him. But Kavanaugh, joined by Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion in the Vance case that said the president still had options.
“The court today unanimously concludes that a president does not possess absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena,” Kavanaugh wrote, “but also 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.”
Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to conceal hush payments to two women — including pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels — who alleged they had affairs with Trump years ago. Trump has denied those claims.
“This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law,” Vance said in a statement. “Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.”
The president’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, countered: “We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the president’s tax records. We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”
In the Vance case, Roberts’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They concluded the president “is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”
Trump’s lawyers had argued in lower court that the president was so immune to local law enforcement that it could not investigate the president were he to shoot someone in the street.
In court hearing, Trump lawyer argues a sitting president would be immune from prosecution even if he were to shoot someone
At the Supreme Court, they argued that having to comply with a state criminal subpoena would be an intolerable distraction to doing important work for the nation, would undermine his leadership abilities and stature in the world and subject him to harassment.
Roberts said the court’s precedents had made all three arguments unavailable to him, and the question was whether a state subpoena was different from a federal one, with which the court already has ruled a president must comply.
The majority found little difference.
Alito dissented on that. “Never before has a local prosecutor subpoenaed the records of a sitting president,” he wrote. “The court’s decision threatens to impair the functioning of the presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the nation’s 2,300+ local prosecutors.”
Thomas would give the president more leeway to argue that the job deserves his “whole time” and the subpoena should not be enforced. (Roberts said there was “little daylight” between the majority opinion and Thomas’s dissent.)
In the congressional case, the court tried to strike a balance between the chief executive and Congress, while lamenting that it had to get involved in the first place.
Roberts wrote that the court was wary because the case was “the first of its kind to reach this court; that disputes of this sort can raise important issues concerning relations between the branches; that related disputes involving congressional efforts to seek official Executive Branch information recur on a regular basis, including in the context of deeply partisan controversy; and that Congress and the Executive have nonetheless managed for over two centuries to resolve such disputes among themselves without the benefit of guidance from us.”
While the House presented the issue as routine, Roberts wrote, the court would have to be “blind” not to see “the subpoenas do not represent a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved.”
The court reinforced Congress’s broad investigative power, but said such authority is not limitless and must be more targeted when it comes to subpoenas for a president’s personal information.
Without limits, the court warned, “Congress could declare open season on the president’s information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions.”
The majority devised a new four-part test for courts to analyze the validity of subpoenas aimed at the president.
The court said Congress cannot seek the president’s information as part of a case study for general legislation if other sources are available. Lawmakers also must narrow their requests and detail how the president’s information will advance possible legislation.The court said Congress cannot seek the president’s information as part of a case study for general legislation if other sources are available. Lawmakers also must narrow their requests and detail how the president’s information will advance possible legislation.
But even with the restrictions, the court rejected the administration’s view of how limited Congress’s inquiries may be. There might be other considerations courts should consider as well, Roberts wrote: “one case every two centuries does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list.”
“The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities,” the court said. But he said lower courts that found the House subpoenas were authorized did not pay enough attention to the “significant” separation-of-powers issues
At the same time, the court rejected the administration’s view of how limited Congress’s inquiries may be.
“The standards proposed by the president and the solicitor general — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities,” the court said.
In dissent, Thomas said congressional subpoenas of the executive should come only in service of impeachment proceedings. Alito said “legislative subpoenas for a president’s personal documents are inherently suspicious,” and the court majority did not go far enough in its requirements to lower courts evaluating them.
House Democrats called the decision a win, but one with a cost.House Democrats called the decision a win, but one with a cost.
“While defeated on his claim that he’s above the law, Trump is now beyond the law until after November,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which requested Trump’s tax returns. “He may not be able to outrun the law, but he’s outrunning the clock.”“While defeated on his claim that he’s above the law, Trump is now beyond the law until after November,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which requested Trump’s tax returns. “He may not be able to outrun the law, but he’s outrunning the clock.”
Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to conceal hush payments to two women — including pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels — who alleged they had affairs with Trump years ago. Trump has denied those claims. The battle over the documents comes in part because Trump, unlike every president since Jimmy Carter, has not voluntarily turned over his tax returns.
Meet the Manhattan district attorney doing battle with President Trump in court Vance is seeking those, although with other records.
Vance is seeking Trump’s tax returns, among other records. Trump, unlike previous modern presidents, has refused to make them public. Because the records are for a grand jury investigation, they probably would not be disclosed before the election. Trump ‘inflated his total assets when it served his purposes,’ Cohen alleges in his hearing, citing financial documents
Separately, three House committees have sought to bypass the president to obtain his financial records from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, and financial institutions. The committees, all controlled by Democrats, say they are needed to check Trump’s financial disclosures and inform whether conflict-of-interest laws are tough enough.Separately, three House committees have sought to bypass the president to obtain his financial records from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, and financial institutions. The committees, all controlled by Democrats, say they are needed to check Trump’s financial disclosures and inform whether conflict-of-interest laws are tough enough.
Lawmakers’ line of investigation is more expansive than the district attorney’s. They have demanded information “about seven business entities, as well as the personal accounts of President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump,” according to the brief filed by the president’s private lawyers.Lawmakers’ line of investigation is more expansive than the district attorney’s. They have demanded information “about seven business entities, as well as the personal accounts of President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump,” according to the brief filed by the president’s private lawyers.
The congressional subpoenas followed testimony from Trump’s former fixer, attorney Michael Cohen, who told lawmakers that Trump had exaggerated his wealth to seek loans. Two committees subpoenaed Capital One and Deutsche Bank as part of their investigation into Russian money laundering and potential foreign influence involving Trump.The congressional subpoenas followed testimony from Trump’s former fixer, attorney Michael Cohen, who told lawmakers that Trump had exaggerated his wealth to seek loans. Two committees subpoenaed Capital One and Deutsche Bank as part of their investigation into Russian money laundering and potential foreign influence involving Trump.
Federal judges in New York and the District of Columbia — at the district court and appeals court levels — had moved swiftly by court standards and repeatedly ruled against Trump and to uphold Congress’s broad investigative powers. Federal judges in New York and the District of Columbia repeatedly ruled against Trump and to uphold Congress’s broad investigative powers.
Ann E. Marimow contributed to this story. Ann E. Marimow and Rachael Bade contributed to this report.