The court rejects Trump’s imperious arguments on subpoenas, but it doesn’t go far enough
|
Version 0 of 1. SEVERAL TIMES in the Supreme Court’s now-concluded 2019-2020 term, the justices stopped short of giving one side a complete victory on a hot-button issue. They did so again Thursday, the last day of the term, when the question was whether subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records — one from Manhattan’s district attorney, four from Congress — were enforceable. The court rejected the imperious arguments of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who would have denuded investigators of power to examine his conduct. But the justices did not order the immediate turnover of the president’s records, instead mandating further litigation. Though the court’s moderation in some cases this term has been valuable, the punting in this instance was wrong. The court effectively rewarded Mr. Trump’s policy of total noncooperation with Congress and other investigators, allowing him to foil attempts to scrutinize his behavior before the November election. By unnecessarily lengthening the dispute, the justices sharpened the incentive for future presidents to fight subpoenas until courts force compliance. Even so, the justices clarified the law so that courts might more quickly and confidently rule against a wayward president in future cases, vehemently rejecting Mr. Trump’s dangerous arguments for presidential impunity. The justices found that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. could subpoena Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for the president’s financial records and that Mr. Vance did not have to meet special requirements simply because he seeks the president’s documents. Though it is questionable whether Mr. Vance could charge a sitting president, it is now clearer that he and other local prosecutors may collect and save evidence that could be used in criminal prosecutions following a president’s tenure. Lower courts should resolve any remaining questions around Mr. Vance’s subpoena and allow the district attorney to get on with his work. The court was not as clear on the extent of Congress’s subpoena powers. The majority resented that it had to rule on the issue, as the branches had historically found ways to compromise on documents and testimony without involving the court. Mr. Trump’s obstinance ended that tradition of give and take. The justices rejected the president’s argument that Congress would have to meet an exacting standard to obtain any presidential document it sought. Yet they did not want to deliver an unmitigated victory to the legislature that might upset the balance that had existed when the two branches would negotiate and compromise. So the justices sent the case back to lower courts, declaring that lower-court judges must more carefully consider separation-of-powers concerns in weighing Congress’s demand to see Mr. Trump’s financial records. In so doing, the justices underscored that Congress’s subpoena power was crucial for the lawmakers to make informed decisions, but that Congress must have a bona fide legislative purpose, not just a desire to harass the president. It is hard to blame the justices for their caution and unease. But Mr. Trump’s rampant norm-breaking has made for uneasy times. He forced the issue by refusing to release his tax returns, lying about why, then attacking valid subpoenas. If the court again considers such a case, it must be clearer that the president cannot escape scrutiny. Read more: Henry Olsen: The Supreme Court got it exactly right on Trump’s tax returns Paul Waldman: The Supreme Court just declared Trump isn’t above the law. But he also got a reprieve. Harry Litman: The wait to see Trump’s taxes may have just gotten a lot longer George Conway: No one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is about to teach that lesson. The Post’s View: The Supreme Court must enforce the subpoena of Trump’s financial records |