The current U.S. Supreme Court (image: public domain)
The court’s ruling, expected by July, could require disclosure of information the president has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect. Or the justices could rule that Mr. Trump’s financial affairs are not legitimate subjects of inquiry.
But some of the justices’ questions raised a third possibility: that the court could return the cases to lower courts for reconsideration under stricter standards. That would have the incidental effect of deferring a final decision beyond the 2020 presidential election.
The first argument of two the court heard, which dealt with the congressional investigations, seemed to go better for Mr. Trump.
The justices seemed more skeptical of the president’s case during the second argument, in which Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued that he was absolutely immune from criminal investigation while he remained in office.
The subpoenas ask for documents from Trump’s accountants or bankers, not from Trump himself. The firms have previously said they are willing to comply with the court’s ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be an apparent swing vote in the eventual ruling.
Early read on Supreme Court argument:
— Liberal four (RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) entirely dug in against President’s position; — Conservative four (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) not thrilled with Trump’s absolute positions; — Roberts searching for middle ground. — Elie Honig (@eliehonig) May 12, 2020
“Not a single thing is required of the President or the White House” to comply with these subpoenas.
The most impt words spoken by the House General Counsel at this Supreme Court argument. These subpoenas don’t demand anything of Trump–other than not putting him above the law. — Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) May 12, 2020
Each case raises different issues: 1: Can House enforce its subpoenas in court in the face of widespread resistance from the Trump administration? 2: Is a sitting president subject to ANY criminal process while in office?
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) May 12, 2020
Supreme Court appears less divided in second case on NY subpoena. Not receptive to the broad argument of presidential immunity made by Trump lawyers. More interested in potential need for some heightened standard for such subpoenas, which NY lawyer is trying to address
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) May 12, 2020
If Justices are merely “umpires” as CJ Roberts claimed, than Trump should lose these cases 9-0, just as Clinton lost his claim to presidential immunity. Any other result would expose something rotten at the Supreme Court. And in a way, it’s good to know that now.
— Ian Bassin (@ianbassin) May 12, 2020
At issue today in SCOTUS is essentially this: Is the president an American citizen, subject like us to the rule of law? -or- Does the presidency confer a special status, which exempts POTUS for a time (and sometimes forever) from the laws that bind the rest of us?
— David French (@DavidAFrench) May 12, 2020