Supreme Court rules on Trump’s financial records

The Supreme Court issued rulings in two cases related to President Trump’s financial records this morning.

If you’re just tuning in now, here’s what you need to know about the rulings:

President Trump still “stands beside the posture” he made on absolute immunity that was rejected by the Supreme Court on Thursday, his press secretary said.

After reading from Thomas’ dissent, McEnany said the President “takes issue with the point that the majority made on absolute immunity.”

Later, asked whether that meant Trump felt he was above the law, McEnany took offense.

“It’s almost as if folks don’t understand it’s a legal term of art,” she said, referring to “absolutely immunity.”

What this is about: Supreme Court justices ruled today that the President is not immune from a subpoena for his financial documents from a New York prosecutor. This case was sent to a lower court for further review.

The 7-2 opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed dissenting opinions. The President’s two nominees voted in the majority.

Roberts noted that court was unanimous that there is no absolute immunity.

Roberts said, “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 oral arguments early May, Trump’s attorneys asked for “temporary presidential immunity” against the prosecutor’s subpoena.

“Temporary presidential immunity,” in the way the President’s lawyers describe it, would mean that Trump (or whomever is president at the time) couldn’t be investigated or prosecuted while holding the office of President. No subpoenas, no testimony, no indictments, if investigators sought those.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling “a win” for President Trump.

At a Thursday press briefing, McEnany was asked how the President feels about the justices he appointed and their votes that the President is not immune from a subpoena for his financial documents from a New York prosecutor.

“The justices are entitled to their opinion this is an independent branch of government,” McEnany said. “President Trump underscored to me, I was just in the Oval Office with him, that it was Justice Kavanaugh who pointed out in the New York state court case that there is unanimous agreement that this should be remanded to DC, excuse me to the district court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal arguments.”

“Also there was a note in the Roberts opinion that in the New York state case basically the grand jury said that they were prohibited from arbitrary fishing expeditions and initiating investigations out of malice or intent to harass,” she continued. “So that language made it very clear this was a win for the President.”

McEnany later said that the justices “essentially laid out a road map. His justices did not vote against him.”

Asked about the President’s morning tweets where he appeared to be unhappy with the decision, McEnany said Trump, “was making a general point about deference on the principal of absolute immunity.”

“He believes there should have been more deference there,” she said.

The Supreme Court’s decision today in the case about the New York subpoena promises to reignite a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office that started more than a year ago.

How SCOTUS ruled: The court ruled that President Trump is not immune from a subpoena for his financial documents from a New York prosecutor — but prosecutors will not get the records for now. The cases were sent back to lower courts for further review.

Latest on the investigation: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s office has been examining whether Trump or the Trump Organization violated state laws in connection with hush money payments made to women alleging affairs with Trump.

The investigation has also looked into whether business records filed with the state were falsified and if any tax laws were violated, CNN has reported.

What comes next: On Thursday, Vance’s office said its investigation had been delayed for nearly a year by Trump’s lawsuit seeking to block grand jury access to his financial records, and said it would now resume, “guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.”

Though the district attorney’s investigation was hampered by lack of access to Trump’s financial records, it has advanced in other ways in recent months.

Investigators have interviewed former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen as well as David Pecker, a longtime Trump confidante and the CEO of National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc., which admitted in federal court to having made payments during the 2016 election cycle to quiet a woman who alleged an affair with Trump.

Jay Sekulow, counsel to President Trump, said in a statement that they “are pleased” that the Supreme Court has “temporarily blocked” Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining Trump’s financial records.

He noted that they will now proceed to “raise additional” Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts where the cases have been sent back for further review.

The Supreme Court today blocked House Democrats from accessing Trump’s financial records, but ruled that the President is not immune from a subpoena for his financial documents from a New York prosecutor.

Sekulow represented Trump before the Supreme Court during oral arguments held in May. Sekulow told Justices that they were asking for “temporary presidential immunity” to prevent the President from having to release his financial documents following subpoenas.

Read Sekulow’s 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 financial records. We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”

House Democrats are reacting to the Supreme Court’s rulings on President Trump’s finances. In one of the cases, the court ruled that House subpoenas of Trump’s financial records will remain blocked, sending the controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

In the case about the New York subpoena, the court ruled that the President is not immune from a subpoena for his financial documents from a New York prosecutor. This case was also sent to a lower court for further review.

Here’s what some Democratic lawmakers are saying:

CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic said the Supreme Court decisions today were a win for President Trump in terms of “the time he buys.”

Since the cases will be sent to lower courts for further review, it all but ensures that the President will be able to shield his financial documents from the public ahead of the November presidential election.

Biskupic added, however, that in the decision about the New York subpoena, there’s a “very strong” chance that Trump will eventually have to turn over the tax records to a grand jury. 

Watch her full analysis:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reacted to the Supreme Court’s rulings, saying the court today “upheld a fundamental tenet of our democracy that no one is above the law.”

Here’s the full statement:

“No matter how much he wishes it to be true, President Trump is not king. In a devastating blow to President Trump and his enablers in the Republican party, the Supreme Court today upheld a fundamental tenet of our democracy that no one is above the law.
Sadly, today’s rulings are a stark reminder that while President Trump is actively undermining our democracy, Senate Republicans and Attorney General Barr are not lifting a finger to stop him—something that is not lost on the American people.”

As the Supreme Court handed down ruling on cases related to President Trump’s financial records, the justices also issued an opinion on a case about Native American land in Oklahoma.

The Supreme Court said the large swath of eastern Oklahoma — which including Tulsa — is Native American land for purposes of federal criminal law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the 5-4 opinion joined by the liberals on the bench.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” said Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word,” he said.

Under the law, crimes involving Native Americans on a reservation are under federal, not state, jurisdiction.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s financial documents, other courts also ruled today on cases related to the President’s finances.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said on Thursday that the DC and Maryland attorneys general can’t get documents under subpoena from the Trump Organization at this time, as it put on pause another major case about Trump’s business holdings.

The case, related to the Constitution’s emoluments clause, was another avenue where state-level leaders sought Trump financial information.

It is different from the cases the Supreme Court decided Thursday regarding congressional subpoenas and a state grand jury for President Trump’s tax returns.

The appeals court had revived the lawsuit by Maryland and the District of Columbia over the ownership of Trump’s hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, and had sent several subpoenas.

But the Justice Department is appealing to the Supreme Court on behalf of Trump.

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said today, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 7-2 opinion. Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions. The President’s two nominees voted in the majority.

Here are some key quotes from the opinion:    

Justice John Roberts:

 “Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns.”
He continued: “While we certainly recognize Congress’s important interests in obtaining information through appropriate inquiries, those interests are not sufficiently powerful to justify access to the President’s personal papers when other sources could provide Congress the information it needs.” 

Justice Clarence Thomas

“Congress’ legislative powers do not authorize it to engage in a nationwide inquisition with whatever resources it chooses to appropriate for itself. The majority’s solution—a nonexhaustive four-factor test of uncertain origin—is better than nothing. But the power that Congress seeks to exercise here has even less basis in the Constitution than the majority supposes. I would reverse in full because the power to subpoena private, nonofficial documents is not a necessary implication of Congress’ legislative powers. If Congress wishes to obtain these documents, it should proceed through the impeachment power.”

 Justice Samuel Alito:

“Whenever such a subpoena comes before a court, Congress should be required to make more than a perfunctory showing that it is seeking the documents for a legitimate legislative purpose and not for the purpose of exposing supposed Presidential wrongdoing.
He continued: “I agree that the lower courts erred and that these cases must be remanded, but I do not think that the considerations outlined by the Court can be properly satisfied unless the House is required to show more than it has put forward to date. Specifically, the House should provide a description of the type of legislation being considered, and while great specificity is not necessary, the description should be sufficient to permit a court to assess whether the particular records sought are of any special importance. The House should also spell out its constitutional authority to enact the type of legislation that it is contemplating, and it should justify the scope of the subpoenas in relation to the articulated legislative needs.”

Following the Supreme Court ruling on a New York prosecutor’s request for Trump’s financial records, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that President Trump’s tax returns will not be public in 2020.

“He’s kept his tax returns secret far longer than any presidential candidate in the modern history of presidential elections. That record will be intact in 2020,” Toobin says. ““That is something that was the calamity that was potentially at the end of this case for the President. It will not happen.”

What this is about: The justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena, but that doesn’t mean prosecutors will not get documents now.

Despite a second Supreme Court ruling that blocks Congress from getting Trump’s records for now, Toobin says that the President still has reason to worry.

“If I’m Donald Trump, I’m also going to be thinking ‘You know win or lose, the Manhattan DA is not going away. This investigation is going to continue and I might get indicted in Manhattan.’”

“The decision in the [New York prosecutor] Cyrus Vance case really does suggest that these documents will be produced to the Grand Jury. Not immediately but eventually. If I’m the President, I’m not going to be happy about the idea that my financial documents will be before a grand jury, even if it’s not until after the 2020 election,” Toobin adds.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the Supreme Court’s rulings related to President Trump’s financial records are “not good news” for the President.

About the rulings: Justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena — but prosecutors will not get documents now.

They also blocked Congress from getting the President’s records for now, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

WATCH:

President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked for now, the Supreme Court ruled this morning, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

The House had argued that it was seeking the President’s financial records from Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank and Capital One for the purpose of investigating whether Congress should amend federal conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure laws, as well as laws regulating banks.

Deutsche Bank reacted to the decision in a statement:   

“Deutsche Bank has demonstrated full respect for the US legal process and remained neutral throughout these proceedings. We will of course abide by a final decision by the courts,” Daniel Hunter, Deutsche Bank spokesperson, said.

Following the Supreme Court’s decisions on his financial records, including one that said that the President is not immune to a New York prosecutor’s subpoena, Trump said the court gave him a “delayed ruling” that they “never would have given” to another president.

The President also tweeted that the Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back to lower courts for further review was “not fair to this Presidency or Administration!”

Read the President’s tweets:

After the Supreme Court ruled on a New York prosecutor’s request for Trump’s financial records, Joe Biden quote-tweeted a video of himself addressing President Trump in 2019.

“Mr. President, release your tax returns or shut up,” he said in the video from 2019, comparing his record to the President’s and touting that he’d released 21 years of his tax returns. 

Biden quoted the video this morning, writing, “As I was saying.” 

Remember: While the justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena, prosecutors will not get documents now.

In the Supreme Court ruling on whether a New York prosecutor can obtain the President’s financial documents, all nine justices say that the President does not have absolute immunity from a subpoena, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explains. But here’s why it might take time to get the documents anyway.

“The idea that the President can’t be subpoenaed is completely rejected by the Supreme Court, and that even the two dissenting justices agree on,” CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explains. “All nine also agree that the case should go back to the district court. The practical victory for the President is that the legal proceedings will continue.”

“It seems unlikely given this opinion that the President will ultimately be able to stop the disclosure of these events to the grand jury in Manhattan, but it’s going to take time,” Toobin adds.

Here’s what will happen now

Toobin: “This process will begin again. The district court will get briefings. They may hear evidence. That will be appealed to the second circuit court of appeals. And then the losing party will likely go back to the Supreme Court. All of this will take a while.”

Why will this have to go back?

Toobin: “Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion says that like any other defendant, [President Trump] can go in the district court and say, ‘this is harassment. It is overbroad.’ They can’t make the same arguments that they made in this case, but there are arguments that any defendant can make to try to stop a subpoena. They usually don’t work, but they are arguments that are raised in court.”

A note on time:

“Federal courts don’t work overnight,” Toobin says. “Here we are in the middle of July, the election is in November. It seems to be very unlikely that the actual documents will be turned over to the grand jury before November.”

Final note from Toobin: “There is no requirement or even permission for public disclosure of these documents at any point.”

WATCH:

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. issued a statement via his press office regarding the Supreme Court ruling this morning that President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena.

Remember: The documents, however, will remain blocked for now.

“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,” the statement said.

WATCH:

The Supreme Court ruled on two cases related to President Trump’s financial records.

In one, the justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena — but prosecutors will not get documents now.

They also blocked Congress from getting the President’s records for now, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Each of the two opinions were 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts and both of Trump’s appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — joining the liberal justices.

Here are the seven justices on the majority opinion:

And these are the two justices who dissented:

WATCH:

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote this 7-2 opinion, and was joined again by Trump’s two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both of whom penned concurring opinions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed dissenting opinions.

uthe case: The case pitted the President’s personal lawyers against House Democrats who say they need records from Trump’s longtime accounting firm and two banks. The House argued that it was seeking the records from Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank and Capital One for the purpose of investigating whether Congress should amend federal conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure laws, as well as laws regulating banks.

Lawyers for the House stressed that the subpoenas are directed at third parties, not the President, and that the documents are unrelated to his official duties. Trump argued there is no valid legislative purpose for the documents, and instead the House is engaged in a fishing expedition to see if he broke the law.

Key moments from the oral arguments: In early May, Trump’s attorneys argued that the House subpoenas were “unprecedented in every sense.”

When a lawyer for the House argued in support of the subpoenas issued by three committees, several conservative justices zeroed in on whether the efforts by the Democratic-led house amounted to harassment of Trump.

For his part, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the lawyer about the limits of congressional powers and suggested that the House needed to take into consideration the fact that the subpoenas involved, not at an ordinary litigant, but the President.

The liberal justices, meanwhile, pounced on lawyers for Trump, suggesting that the court has long upheld Congress’ power to investigate.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that every recent president has voluntarily turned over his tax returns. She pointed to past investigations concerning Watergate, Whitewater and Paula Jones.

“How do you distinguish all of those cases,” she asked, adding that before Congress can legislate, it must investigate.

WATCH:

The Supreme Court on Thursday said President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena, but prosecutor will not get documents now.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned the 7-2 opinion, and was joined by Trump’s two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed dissenting opinions.

Roberts said, “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.”

About the case: New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance had served a subpoena on Trump’s long-time accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his tax returns as part of an investigation into hush money payments to two women with whom the President allegedly had extra-marital affairs pursuant to testimony of Michael Cohen. (Trump has denied the affairs.)

Key moments from the oral arguments: In early May, Trump’s attorneys asked for “temporary presidential immunity” against the prosecutor’s subpoena.

Several of the justices did not seem receptive to Trump’s broad claims of immunity, pointing at times to court precedent concerning Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton that were relied upon by the lower courts that ruled against Trump.

Justice John Roberts asked a lawyer for Trump about the fact that in Clinton v. Jones, the court allowed a private citizen to bring civil suit against a sitting president.

“You focus on the distraction to the President” in this case, Roberts told a lawyer for Trump, but he said in the Clinton case, “we were not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed that New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance was not targeting official acts by the President.

“You are asking for a broader immunity than anyone else gets,” she told a Trump attorney.

And when he emphasized that the president is different than an ordinary litigant, Justice Elena Kagan shot back, saying: “The President isn’t above the law.”

The Supreme Court has ruled on whether a New York prosecutor can obtain the President’s financial documents and tax records from his accounting firm and banks.

Here’s what you need to know about the case:

WATCH:

Any moment now, the Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions on two cases this morning concerning access to President Trump’s financial records.

The cases tackle whether Trump can stop the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives from getting his financial and banking records from his accounting firm and banks and whether the President can block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor seeking his tax returns.

At oral arguments, the justices focused on Trump’s effort to shield his documents but they also prodded the lawyers to look into the future and gauge how an eventual decision will impact the separation of powers and the White House’s broad claims of immunity.

WATCH:

It’s the court decision that probably strikes more fear in President Trump’s heart than any other.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether Trump’s accountants must turn his financial records and tax returns over to House Democrats and New York prosecutors investigating hush money payments.

Is he worth as much as he says he is? Where is he getting money from? What are his international business deals? Does he pay taxes at all? Or does he manipulate the tax code, as he’s bragged of doing, to get out of it?

All of these questions could be answered by viewing the tax returns he’s gone to such lengths to keep from public view.

The Department of Justice said during oral arguments there should be a different standard for the President than for everyone else. So this will also be a key legal test of Trump’s attempt to wrap himself in a bubble of total immunity while in office.

Note: Trump is the only modern President to hide his tax returns. You can read Joe Biden’s here.

Read more:

Related article The Supreme Court may finally unlock Trump's financial records

The Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions on two cases this morning concerning access to President Trump’s financial records. The court announced on Wednesday that today is the final day of the term.

The release of any Trump financial documents before the election could be another bombshell for the President in an already dramatic year.

Here’s what you need to know:

What the cases are about: The cases tackle whether Trump can stop the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives from getting his financial and banking records from his accounting firm and banks and whether the President can block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor seeking his tax returns.

Takeaways from the oral arguments: The justices in May focused on Trump’s effort to shield his documents but they also prodded the lawyers to look into the future and gauge how an eventual decision will impact the separation of powers and the White House’s broad claims of immunity.

Trump’s attorneys argued that that the House subpoenas were “unprecedented in every sense” and they asked for “temporary presidential immunity” against a subpoena from a New York prosecutor for Trump’s tax records.

“We’re asking for temporary presidential immunity,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow told the court, defending against a subpoena from New York for the President’s tax records.

Delays due to Covid-19: The Supreme Court has taken an unusually long time to complete its term this year, with decisions in three cases still under wraps more than a week after the justices would have typically cleared out its docket for the season.

The coronavirus pandemic can be partly blamed for the delay. Already, the justices broke tradition in May by holding oral arguments over the phone and broadcasting them live as much of the country was under lockdown.