Supreme Court deals Trump a defeat, upholds demand for his tax returns
David G. Savage
LA TimesJuly 9, 2020, 10:14 AM

The Supreme Court dealt President Trump a major defeat Thursday by rejecting his claims of presidential immunity and upholding subpoenas from New York prosecutors seeking his tax returns and financial records.

In one of the most anticipated rulings on presidential privilege in years, the justices by a 7-2 vote ruled the nation's chief executive is not above the law and must comply with legitimate demands from a grand jury in New York that is investigating Trump's alleged hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with him. Even so, it is unlikely the general public will see Trump's financial records before the November election, if ever.

Trump had sued to block the subpoenas and claimed that as president he had an "absolute immunity" from demands for personal or confidential information.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, rejected Trump's claim.

"We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the president is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need."

In a related case involving a similar subpoena from House investigators, the court also ruled 7-2 that the president did not have immunity. But justices vacated the House subpoenas, saying lower courts failed to properly balance the legal and constitutional questions raised by the request. They sent the matter back to lower courts for review.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in both cases. Trump's two appointees, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, concurred in the outcome in the New York case, but did not join the chief justice's opinion. All four liberal justices voted with Roberts.

Although the decisions were a defeat for Trump, there is a bright side for him. Chances are high that the details of his finances will remain a secret from the public because grand juries operate confidentially and rarely leak. Had House investigators received Trump's records, it would have been far more likely that some or all of the information would have leaked before the November election.

Also, exactly when the documents must be handed over to the grand jury is unclear. The court said Trump could still fight their release by raising certain other issues in court.

Trump blasted the decision, insisting that courts in the past had deferred to presidents in such matters. "BUT NOT ME!" he tweeted.

In fact, the court consistently has rejected sweeping claims of presidential immunity, ruling unanimously that President Nixon had to hand over the Watergate tapes and that President Clinton had to be deposed in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

The election-year dispute had an obvious political significance, but it was also the rare separation of powers case in which the powers of the president, Congress and the judicial system were all at issue.

Regarding the House subpoena, Roberts said there was a need for a "balanced approach" in this clash between the president and Congress. He said a judge must take a closer look at the subpoenas and "carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the president and his papers." He also said the amount of records should be "narrowed" in scope.

He added that the House had failed to explain why it needed Trump's financial records in order to legislate. "It is impossible to conclude that a subpoena is designed to advance a valid legislative purpose unless Congress adequately identifies its aims and explains why the president's information will advance its consideration of the possible legislation," he said.

After Democrats won control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, three separate committees - on oversight, intelligence and financial services - issued broad subpoenas to Trump's accountants demanding records going back to 2010 on Trump's personal and family finances. A subpoena to Deutsche Bank sought records on loans taken out by Trump and his organization.

Lawyers for the House said Congress has the power and duty to conduct oversight and investigations, including into the chief executive. They said it was especially important to look further since Trump appeared to have far-flung business dealings that were hidden from the public, and said his finances could reveal if the president had conflicts of interest, including business deals in Russia.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said the court's rulings are "not good news for President Trump. The court has reaffirmed the Congress's authority to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, as it asks for further information from the Congress." She said the House would to press their case in the lower courts.

Separately, a New York grand jury looking into potential crimes involving Trump's personal and business dealings had also issued a subpoena seeking his financial records.

Unlike other presidents since the Watergate era of the 1970s, Trump refused to disclose his tax returns and has kept secret the details of his business dealings. Investigators were particularly interested in whether Trump and his businesses were heavily indebted to foreign banks.

Trump said during the 2016 campaign he expected to release his tax returns, but then refused to do so.

Trump's personal lawyers filed suits in New York and in Washington seeking to block the subpoenas. They argued that demands for records were extreme and unjustified, and that the president had an "absolute immunity" from investigators who sought personal and confidential information.

They lost in lower courts. Federal judges and the U.S. appeals courts in Washington and New York ruled the president, like other citizens, had no right to defy subpoenas for records issued by Congress or a grand jury.

In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump's appeals and put the lower rulings on hold. The lead case involving the House committees was Trump vs. Mazars USA, while the New York grand jury case was Trump vs. Vance.


-------------------------
Dora Hates You

That's your guy, Ding. You proud of your vote? You're gonna vote for him again, huh.