Live updates: Supreme court decision on Trump’s finances | CNN Politics

Supreme Court rules on Trump’s financial records

Meg Wagner

By Meg Wagner and Melissa Macaya, CNN

Updated 4:14 PM EDT, Thu July 9, 2020

President Donald Trump listens during an event in honor of World Nurses Day, in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, May 6, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Video Ad Feedback

See Trump's history of refusing to release his tax records

1:36 • Source: CNN

President Donald Trump listens during an event in honor of World Nurses Day, in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, May 6, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

See Trump's history of refusing to release his tax records

1:36

What we covered

The Supreme Court issued opinions on two cases related to President Trump’s financial records.
Justices blocked House Democrats from accessing Trump’s records, but ruled that the President is not immune from a subpoena from a New York prosecutor.
Both cases were sent back to lower courts for further review, all but ensuring that Trump’s financial documents, which he has long sought to shield from public view, will not be handed over before the November election.
Our live coverage has ended, but you can read through the posts to catch up.

25 Posts

If you're just tuning in, here's what you need to know about today's SCOTUS rulings

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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:

The case about House subpoenas: The Supreme Court blocked House Democrats from accessing Trump’s financial records for now, sending the case back down to the lower court for further review.
The case about the New York subpoena: Justices 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.
What this means for Trump’s financial records: Since the cases will be handled at lower courts, it all but ensures that Trump’s financial documents — which he has long sought to protect — will not be handed over before the November presidential election.
How Trump is reacting: Trump sent multiple tweets after the rulings were released. He claimed the court gave him a “delayed ruling” that they “never would have given” to another president. Later on in the day, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling “a win” for Trump. She said that in his tweets, Trump “was making a general point about deference on the principal of absolute immunity.” She added that the President believes “there should have been more deference there.” Remember: In both cases, both of Trump’s appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — joined the liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts on the 7-2 majorities.
What House Democrats are saying: California Rep. Adam Schiff said the decision over House subpoenas will “only serve to delay” the committee’s probe, and called a delay “dangerous.” Asked if she was disappointed Democrats won’t see the documents before November, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said what was at stake was whether the President is above the law. If the court had ruled in that direction, she said, “that would have just been devastating, to tell you the honest truth.” Pelosi added, “The victory is for the Constitution of the United States. The process will take longer, but that’s not what was truly important here.”

White House says Trump still believes he's entitled to "absolute immunity"

From CNN's Kevin Liptak and Katelyn Polantz

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.

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 on SCOTUS ruling: "This was a win for the President"

From CNN's Nikki Carvajal

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.

“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.

SCOTUS ruling on New York prosecutor's subpoena set to reignite investigation into Trump

From CNN's Ariane de Vogue, Devan Cole and Erica Orden

Andrew Harnik/AP

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.

Trump's attorney says they will now "raise additional" legal issues in the lower courts

From CNN's Kaitlan Collins and Jeremy Diamond

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:

What House Democrats are saying about the SCOTUS rulings

From CNN's Ali Zaslav, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

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:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Asked if she was disappointed Democrats won’t see the documents before November, she said what was at stake was whether the President is above the law. If the court had ruled in that direction, she said, “that would have just been devastating, to tell you the honest truth.” Pelosi added, “The victory is for the Constitution of the United States. The process will take longer, but that’s not what was truly important here.”
California Rep. Adam Schiff: He said the decision over House subpoenas will “only serve to delay” the committee’s probe, and called a delay “dangerous.” Schiff also said the “specific documents the committee has requested from Deutsche Bank are critical to its investigation of whether foreign actors, particularly Russia, have leverage over President Trump, his family, and his businesses, and whether legislation is needed to guard against such dangerous conflicts of interest and foreign influence.”
California Rep. Eric Swalwell: He said “the walls are closing in” on Trump and while “he may have gotten a lease on this financial life for a short period of time … it’s pretty clear that the grand jury is going to see his taxes.”
Pennsylvania Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon: On whether voters could see Trump’s tax returns before election day, she said it’s yet to be seen, but “the President’s tactic has always been to delay … he’s shown no interest in being forthright with the American people, so I don’t expect that to change.”

Supreme Court rulings buy Trump time, CNN legal analyst says

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:

Schumer on Supreme Court rulings: "Trump is not king"

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:

The Supreme Court also ruled on a case about Native land in Oklahoma today

From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

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.

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

Another court rules that DC and Maryland attorney generals cannot subpoena Trump Organization now

From CNN's Katelyn Polantz

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.

What Supreme Court justices said in the case over House subpoenas

From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

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:

Justice Clarence Thomas

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.”

We will not see President Trump's tax returns in 2020, CNN analyst says

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

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.’”

Pelosi: These rulings are "not good news for President Trump"

From CNN's Lauren Fox and Manu Raju

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

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:

Bank holding some of Trump's financial records reacts to SCOTUS decision

From CNN’s Erica Orden

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:

Here are some of Trump's first tweets after the rulings

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:

Biden responds to SCOTUS ruling on prosecutor's request for Trump's financial records

From CNN’s Sarah Mucha

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.

SCOTUS ruling on prosecutor's request legal defeat for Trump, but may be a practical victory, CNN analyst says

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

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.

“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:

New York prosecutor calls Supreme Court ruling "tremendous victory"

From CNN's Elizabeth Joseph

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.

WATCH:

How the nine Supreme Court Justices ruled on these cases

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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:

Stephen Breyer
John Roberts
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Neil Gorsuch
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Brett Kavanaugh

And these are the two justices who dissented:

Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

WATCH:

Supreme Court blocks Congress from getting Trump financial records

From CNN's Ariane de Vogue

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:

GO DEEPER

GO DEEPER