Supreme Court stays subpoenas for Trump financial records, will hear all three cases
Two of the cases involve House committee subpoenas and one case involves a Manhattan District Attorney grand jury subpoena.
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear three cases involving attempts by Democrats to subpoena Trump’s financial records. Two of the case involve House committee subpoenas and one case involves a Manhattan District Attorney grand jury subpoena.
The Court also stayed enforcement of the subpoenas pending argument and decision.
19-635 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. VANCE, CYRUS R., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case will be set for argument in the March 2020 argument session.
19-715 ) TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL.
19-760 ) TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, ET AL. (19A640)
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-715 is granted. The application (19A640) for stay presented to Justice Ginsburg and by her referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case No. 19-1540, is hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition, the application is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The cases will be set for argument in the March 2020 argument session.
MORE TO FOLLOW
Politico provides this short guide to the cases:
The House-related cases the justices agreed to take up stem from a barrage of subpoenas the House issued in April, when the Oversight and Reform Committee demanded eight years of Trump’s financial records from the international accounting firm Mazars, and the Intelligence and Financial Services committees sought additional records from two of Trump’s major lenders, Deutsche Bank and CapitalOne.
A divided federal appeals court panel in Washington upheld the Oversight panel’s subpoena in October, issuing a 2-1 decision endorsing a broad congressional right to information that could inform legislation.
House lawyers said the details on Trump’s financial dealings could help efforts to tighten financial disclosure laws and to regulate what so-called emoluments presidents and other officials can accept from foreign sources.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the House’s claims about potential legislation were just pretexts and that lawmakers were actually embarking on a impermissible, law-enforcement-type effort to try to prove that Trump had committed crimes.
In December, another divided federal appeals court in New York issued a decision blessing the subpoenas to Deutsche and CapitalOne, but ordering a lower court to set up a process to consider holding back sensitive personal information not relevant to the House probe.
The banks have indicated they don’t currently have copies of Trump’s tax returns, but Deutsche said it does have some returns for two Trump family members.
The third legal fight the justices agreed to wade into pits Trump against Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. A grand jury investigating potential financial and tax-related crimes issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization and to Mazars, prompting Trump to file suit to block the effort.
A unanimous 2 nd Circuit panel backed that subpoena last month.
While the House subpoenas and grand jury subpoena present distinct issues, there is a common issue I expect to focus on: Does a president have some personal protection, while in office, from judicial and quasi-judicial process related to the president’s personal life instigated by political opponents? If the answer is no, then the floodgates of subpoenas could paralyze a president’s ability to function as president. While that doesn’t necessarily resolve the issues completely, it would inform how broadly the Justices construe legislative and grand jury authority as to a sitting president.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The income tax got in under the promise that no return would be released to other agencies, so that it’s not self-incrimination to file a return (perhaps reporting illegal income).
If returns can be forced to be released, then you no longer have to file income tax returns. You’d be forced to testify against yourself.
Big case for the income tax, not only the president.
In this age of Soros funded prosecutors; local District Attorneys and State Attorneys General are becoming left wing policy enforces. It is dangerous to a functioning Republic to allow a local prosecutor the power of indictment over a Unites States President.
“It is dangerous to a functioning Republic to allow a local prosecutor the power of indictment over a Unites States President.”
Heck, it’s dangerous to a functioning Republic just to allow Soros to walk around free.
Roberts better move on these crappy cases and dismiss them entirely. He has a LOT of mud on his face from his FISA courts. Do the right thing for once, Roberts. What a waste.
DJT is, and has been a billionaire for decades. The last two Democrat Presidents never had a real job. They are now multi millionaires. Yet no one cares about their tax returns. Wonder why?
Aside from graft, politicians have granted themselves exclusive rights to insider trading. So, they are bought with tips concerning stocks rise or fall, and profit either way.
You think Barack Obama and Michelle Obama made 20-30 M through trading?
Even Hillary Clinton did not do that well!
Aside from the usual Democrat scam where left-wing publishing houses pay them millions in book advances (that they paid to have someone write for them) for books that the houses will never sell enuf copies to recoup the advances….
The Obama’s have a history even pre-presidential of leveraging political influence for bigger pay days. If I’m recalling the details correctly, didn’t the misses get a substantial jump in job description and salary immediately following her husbands election to Congress at the hospital she worked for at the time? Which the hospital justified by citing a desperate need for the new job they had created for her. Followed by Obama voting for bills which substantially increased the hospitals take from govt payments. Strange thing, though, the “desperately needed” job was left empty when Michelle left to be 1st Lady, And she ended up being the only person ever hired for that “job”, almost as if the 100s of thousands the family netted from the job were thinly disguised payola for the 10s of millions the hospitals income jumped.
Quid Pro Quo, indeed.
Your recollection is spot on.
As has been noted elsewhere, we should be concerned about the tax returns of politicians that received their wealth while holding office, not those that received it before holding office.
Couple of things to think about:
1. Vance asks for 8 years of returns. Seems overbroad if he is concerned with the tax treatment of the Stormy Daniels payment. The breadth of the demand is indicative of the motive of the requestor. Effectively this is a search under the 4th amendment and should be narrowly tailored.
2. The house has alleged this was part of their oversight of the IRS and its requirement to audit the president each year they are in office. Then why is the scope of the request for years that he wasn’t in office. Why don’t they request returns from other presidents and the audit results?
3. Emoluments is a amorphous term. If there was genuine concern then subpoenas for business records not tax returns would be more productive.
4. There is a genuine issue of what should the scope of investigations by local prosecutors of sitting presidents be. Vance certainly bring more than a whiff of the stench of a political prosecution to the table. One need consider if in fact we are descending into banana republic territory in prosecuting our political foes.
5. As a sidebar, is there pending a request to release the grand jury information from the Mueller probe? If so, then turning over to the secrecy of a grand jury none existent.
I think you know there is a House request for the release of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) material. The Waddler requested the District Court release the Mueller Grand Jury materials and the District Court Judge so ordered the AG release the materials. DoJ has appealed that decision with a stay of the order and AFAIK that is where the issue stands at this time.
The DC Cicuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that grand jury testimony and materials can only be released when authorized by rule. They held the Court does not have inherent power to release.
I believe we are seeing systematic abuse of power.
It’s time to protect our functional institutions from bad faith efforts to use law fare to overwhelm it and bring it to a screeching halt. (pun intended)
We have been fortunate thus far: another President might not be so sturdy.
Perhaps the best answer is to follow the example of the Brits.
Should the USSC grant the petitions of the House the NY prosecutor, the Secretary of the Treasury, next day, should subpoena similar records from all 535 members of the House and Senate, for the same reasons — inform tax policy, review the rules on emoluments, etc.
Old saying: nothing gets a bad law changed faster than enforcing it vigorously.
That would be the perfect response. Seeing the profiteering done by the congress critters, exposed to all … YES!
My money says Trump will win all three cases–and at least two of them will be by KO’s.
Yeah, I was surprised that it was RBG who put a stay on the lower court
Actually not surprising from her. All she was doing was preserving the status quo. Sotomayor and Kagan wouldn’t have done it but RGB has more respect for her position than they do.
What a terrible precedent it would set if the courts allow such a blatant and obviously political fishing expedition. If they can do it to Trump, they can do it to anybody.
So SCOTUS by hearing these cases and the HoR committee bringing the case have reinforced that:
1. POTUS can, at present, lawfully resist subpoena from Congress or one house of Congress
2. POTUS may be able to ignore subpoena of this type completely or in part as it is an active question
This would seem to undermine the impeachment article of ‘obstruction of Congress’. Precedent for Executive Branch staff and advisors to resist Congressional subpoena clearly exist so not much remains viable for that article if anything.
More defection from purple district d using this as a pretext to vote no?
The SCOTUS taking up these cases proves that the President’s position (and the position of all prior Presidents) that the President’s advisors and assistants have an expectation of Executive Priviledge and when served with a subpoena the President and/or his advisors and assistants have the right to ask the Federal Courts to act as umpires and determine whether the subpoena must be honored completely, partially or not at all.
Further, as in the case of any other citizen, the President has the right to protect his personal papers and effects by making motion to quash subpoenas, in this case on the grounds that the Manhattan DA’s subpoenas for the President’s (and family’s) financial records are also a thinly disguised fishing expedition propelled by politics and anathema under the Fourth Amendment.
William A. Jacobson: Does a president have some personal protection, while in office, from judicial and quasi-judicial process related to the president’s personal life instigated by political opponents?
Ask Bill Clinton, who was forced to respond to a lawsuit which was eventually dismissed by the court, and settled on appeal.
rhhardin: If returns can be forced to be released, then you no longer have to file income tax returns.
Congressional and investigative oversight generally do not allow for public release.
JPL17: Heck, it’s dangerous to a functioning Republic just to allow Soros to walk around free.
Sure. Because it’s always best to lock up the rich conniving Jews at the bottom of every right-wing conspiracy theory.
Romey: The last two Democrat Presidents never had a real job. They are now multi millionaires. Yet no one cares about their tax returns.
freddy33: Why don’t they request returns from other presidents and the audit results?
Uh, because they released them to the public.
Valerie: You think Barack Obama and Michelle Obama made 20-30 M through trading?
No. Mostly through book sales. More recently, Michelle Obama’s book, “Becoming”, has sold more than 10 million copies.
“No. Mostly through book sales.”
But only after the commie Obama’s paid those publishers hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
Crooks. Corrupt. Just like comrade Zach, a fellow corrupt to the core commie.
The whole democrat party is just one large criminal enterprise. Every crooked bit of it.
Z: More recently, Michelle Obama’s book, “Becoming”, has sold more than 10 million copies.
Michelle Obama’s Becoming, with 10 Million Copies Sold, Could Be the Most Popular Memoir Ever, Publisher Says
And 99% are never read as no one wants to read that made up bullshit, even you commie progs.
Public release isn’t the problem. Release to any other agency is the problem.
rhhardin: Release to any other agency is the problem.
The law specifically allows Congress to have access to any tax return upon request, though they can’t make it public. Investigators can have access with probable cause, though they can’t make it public except in a court of law.
To the extent the return (as to what activity it discloses) can be used against you, you have a case that you can’t be required to file a return.
That was the argument against the income tax amendment, and the promise was it couldn’t be used against you, thus eliminating that objection.
Comrade Zachs interpretation of any law is the same as Stalin’s.
He supports the murder of innocents just as all commies do.
The key phrase is ‘probable cause.’ There can’t be a cause before Trump became a candidate since he never was a politician.
As someone pointed out in a radio interview, the IRS had for years an agent specifically assigned to Trump and his enterprises. There was far more detailed oversight of Trump as well as his business prior to his running for President by the IRS than there ever has been over Pelosi, Nader, or Schiff.
The same goes for NY state. They too would have gone over Trump’s tax returns with a fine-tooth comb.
The argument that Congress has probable cause is meritless.
legacyrepublicvan: There can’t be a cause before Trump became a candidate since he never was a politician.
That has nothing to do with probable cause in a tax investigation.
legacyrepublicvan: The argument that Congress has probable cause is meritless.
You are confused. Congress doesn’t need probable cause. That’s for criminal investigations. Congress needs a legislative purpose to look at *any* tax return, even those for which there is no reason to suspect criminal activity.
For instance you can take the fifth in Congressional testimony. They can no more take your compelled tax return and use it against you either.
rhhardin: That was the argument against the income tax amendment, and the promise was it couldn’t be used against you, thus eliminating that objection.
Of course it can used against you if it is evidence of a crime, just like any other record.
rhhardin: you can take the fifth in Congressional testimony.
If you have a valid claim concerning self-incrimination, you can invoke your Fifth Amendment protections, but your records and other documentation can still be subpoenaed.
Comrade Zach is a liar.
I’m not saying that they can’t obtain Trump’s returns under some reasoning or another. I’m just saying that after that nobody has to file a tax return, owing to self incrimination.
The ruling has a consequence that they’re not considering.
rhhardin: I’m not saying that they can’t obtain Trump’s returns under some reasoning or another. I’m just saying that after that nobody has to file a tax return, owing to self incrimination.
Tell Al Capone.
They got Al Capone on tax evasion. His return was protected, so he couldn’t use self-incrimination as a defense.
Comrade Zach is not only a commie and a liar, he’s truly dumber than dog doo doo. He’s paid to type this BS he types, written somewhere else, by other idiots.
rhhardin: I’m just saying that after that nobody has to file a tax return, owing to self incrimination.
According to tax law, illegal income must be declared, either on line 21 of the 1040 (other income) or with a schedule C (business profit and loss). The IRS can’t initiate a criminal referral not tax related based on the return (unless terrorism related), however, if they audit the return, any criminal activity discovered during the audit are referable. Regardless, the IRS will provide a tax return pursuant to a subpoena, or when requested by a Congressional committee so authorized.
The suit was dismissed by the court on the basis of Clinton’s perjury. When the judge found out about that perjury she was furious. Which is why he settled it, and accepted a suspension of his law license.
That Soros happened to have been born to a Jewish mother is completely irrelevant to the richly deserved hatred he gets. Locking him up without his having committed a crime would be illegal, so we can’t and shouldn’t do it, but you can hardly deny that the republic would be safer if we did. At least in the short term. The precedent set would of course be more damaging in the long term.
Milhouse: The suit was dismissed by the court on the basis of Clinton’s perjury.
For a lie to be perjury, it has to be material. Clinton’s lie had no impact on the dismissal, which was because, according to the court, Jones couldn’t show damages.
Milhouse: That Soros happened to have been born to a Jewish mother is completely irrelevant to the richly deserved hatred he gets.
It’s purely a coincidence that a “rich conniving Jew” is at the bottom of every right-wing conspiracy theory.
Milhouse: Locking him up without his having committed a crime would be illegal, so we can’t and shouldn’t do it, but you can hardly deny that the republic would be safer if we did.
It wouldn’t be much of a republic if you locked people up without trial.
Z: For a lie to be perjury, it has to be material.
Clinton was found in civil contempt, not guilty of perjury.
Clinton’s perjury was material. His lawyer specifically challenged the question’s materiality, the judge considered it and ordered him to answer it. She even gave him a specific definition of the terms, which he said he acknowledged and understood. And then he proceeded to lie.
The judge held him in contempt, because that’s all she could do. She couldn’t prosecute him for perjury; that would be the US Attorney’s job. But there is no mistaking her finding, that what he did was in fact perjury.
a. That’s not true;
b. That Soros is a malign force using his wealth to undermine our republic is not a conspiracy theory; it’s simple news reporting. He doesn’t bother hiding what he’s doing, since it’s all perfectly legal.
And yes, I said that locking people up without their having committed a crime is a bad thing, in the long term. But you can’t deny that the short-term consequence in this case would be to make the republic safer. As someone once said, we’d be destroying it to save it.
The fact is that nobody fulminating against Soros is doing so because he happens to be a Jew; most are probably not even aware of it.
Zachriel,
Congress as a whole is not empowered to review anyone’s tax records nor the Senate nor the HoR. Only specific committee in each house of our bicameral Congress. Even then only for a legislative ‘purpose’.
CommoChief: Only specific committee in each house of our bicameral Congress. Even then only for a legislative ‘purpose’.
That’s right, and even then, they can’t generally make it public.
Comrade Zach is not only a commie and a liar, he’s truly dumber than dog doo doo. He’s paid to type this BS he types, written somewhere else, by other idiots.
There are five distinct issues here:
1. Criminal allegations (as significant or flimsy as they may be, depending on who is being asked). It has never been resolved definitively whether a state or federal government can indict and try a sitting President. The current interpretation of the Justice Department is that at least the federal government cannot, and the reasoning would apply to a state as well. Ultimately the Supreme Court may be required to resolve this if Trump is reelected. I believe that this category includes Vance’s investigation in NY.
2. Civil suits. Ostensibly, the President can be sued civilly while in office, as Clinton was. So the plaintiffs can start getting in line. But if so many present themselves that responding to every suit would take too much time for the President, there is some chance that the Supreme Court would change course and block such suits until the President has left office. That is especially true if the plaintiffs’ cases seem to be (a) a lot heavier on discovery and lurid details than on substance or (b) the kinds of things that judges know are generally settled out of court with confidentiality agreements (whatever one thinks of such confidentiality agreements) and yet that the plaintiffs refuse to settle or (c) something that is not particularly pressing or (d) generated by anti-Trump machinery such as certain well known lawyers and agitators or (e) transparently baseless.
3. Civil governmental matters, such as tax investigations and prosecutions for back taxes. This is largely a red herring because the federal government and the state already have the returns that they need and can audit them in due course. As far as I know, no President has claimed immunity from a tax audit of a year before or during his term of office.
4. Requests for tax returns.
a. Anyone who has done tax returns knows that there is rarely any information on them that independently bears on any investigation of any matter other than the amount owed in taxes and that it is hard to interpret them as well. Neal’s claim that the House Ways & Means Committee needs the returns to check whether the IRS is auditing Trump properly is nonsense. Looking at the returns for 2018 & 2019 to determine whether the President reported something that could be an “emolument” is a bit more plausible, but that is not relevant to prior years and so does not serve the real purpose of everyone who is seeking the returns, which is . . .
b. Disclosing the returns to the public. The public has no right to the returns. Period. End of story. A lot of this would go away if Trump agreed to disclose the returns under seal with iron-clad assurances that they would not be disclosed publicly. The Democrats would go apoplectic. But it is not going to happen because Trump, rightly, will not take the chance that some prosecutor or member of Congress breaks a promise because it is politically expedient.
I don’t see how it could apply to a state. States are separate sovereigns. The US can prosecute state governors, so why shouldn’t states prosecute US presidents?
The proposition (the position of the Justice Department since 1973) that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted rests at least in part on the concern that to allow it would undermine the President’s ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions. This would necessarily likewise preclude any like action by a state. To get technical about it, if the US Constitution suspends the application of criminal process to a sitting President, the Supremacy Clause (art. VI, clause 2) ensures that the same rule applies to state criminal process.
Why is that a state’s problem?
But I don’t think anyone claims that the constitution suspends the application of criminal process to a sitting President. The arguments for such a suspension derive either, as you say, from prudential considerations, or, in my opinion, from the very nature of the executive power. The president is the executive, and he can’t prosecute himself. Neither of these should bind a state.
The logical impossibility for an executive headed by the President to prosecute the President is one of two rationales. The other is that the constitutional duties of the President take precedence over the inconvenience of having to defend against criminal a prosecution and the risk of having to deal with punishment. The latter rationale is as inconsistent with a state prosecution as it is with a federal prosecution, and because the rationale rests on the Constitutional imperative that the President be able without harassment to discharge his duties, under the Supremacy Clause it supersedes any state action or prerogative to the contrary. It is thus unlike the Pardon Power, under which it is generally believed (but as far as I know has never been tested) that the President cannot block a state from prosecuting an individual unless (subject to a case that I believe is now before the Supreme Court) the state prosecution would constitute double jeopardy.
What about the constitutional duties of a governor? How can he carry those out while dealing with the inconvenience of a federal prosecution? And yet any US Attorney can prosecute a governor.
“The constitutional imperative that the president be able without harassment to discharge his duties” is not in the constitution. It’s merely a prudential consideration that makes prosecution inadvisable. Nor has Congress made it a statute. So how can the Supremacy clause apply?
Finally, a quibble: it’s not “an executive headed by the president”, the president is the executive. They are not separate entities. The constitution vests the executive power in the president alone, not in a whole branch that he merely heads.
A governor’s constitutional duties arise only under state law. On a state-by-state basis, there may indeed be an implicit or explicit prohibition in the state constitution or statutory or common law against prosecuting a sitting governor. But federal law, including the power of a US Attorney to get a grand jury to indict anyone under their jurisdiction are supreme over all state law, including state constitutions. That is why the federal government could indict and send a sitting governor (like Rod Blogojevich) to prison. But although states are also sovereign, they cannot take actions that contravene the federal constitution or even a mere federal statute (as long as the statute is within Congress’s constitutional power to enact). The Justice Department’s position since 1973 is not merely a prudential consideration or a recommendation; it is an interpretation of what the Constitution commends. so that if the Justice Department’s interpretation is correct and the basis for it grounded in the President’s constitutional duties is a valid basis for it, then a state cannot indict a sitting President.
I agree with your point about the President being coterminous with the Executive Branch. This is the nub of the “unitary executive” theory. But even if one does not accept this theory and believes that other executive officials possess independent authority unless and until the President removes them (as he generally can, but in some cases only for cause), the Justice Department position would have almost the same force because no one who would be involved in conducting a prosecution would not be subject to the President’s direction and removable at will by the President.
Democrats, as it turns out, are pushing an incorrect theory that the Attorney General has authority independent of the President, as, for example, when Sally Yates refused to carry out a lawful order and had to be fired, when the proper analysis was that she had only three proper choices: (i) carry out the order, (ii) if she thought it unlawful, resign or ask a court for guidance, and (iii) if she did not like it, resign. The Justice Department, for sound policy reasons generally operates independently, but that is neither a legal nor a constitutional requirement. Where the Democrats’ theory leads is that if the career civil service folks in the various agencies think that the President’s policies are not to their liking or against what they see as the best interests of the country, they can and should thwart implementation. That is, of course, nonsense. So whatever Lt. Col. Vintman and the rest of the gang who testified in the House thought of whether Ukraine should or should not get this or that aid or weapons, the decision is not theirs. One can charge the President with demanding X in return for Y, but whether Y was important to Ukraine or to the US national security in the view of the “experts” is completely irrelevant. The charge is the same as if the President had said that if you do X, I will let you take Marine One for a spin when you come to visit, but that does not sound as offensive as disobeying the judgment of all those supposedly nonpartisan (but not really) career experts and law professors.
Milhouse: His lawyer specifically challenged the question’s materiality, the judge considered it and ordered him to answer it.
Clinton lied about Lewinsky. The judge stripped that evidence from consideration in the case. That makes it immaterial.
Whether it figured in the final decision is irrelevant. The Violence Against Women Act (which he not only signed but pushed through Congress) makes an employer’s sexual history with other employees material to all sexual harassment suits. And at the time when he was asked about it the judge ruled the question material and ordered him to answer. She decides materiality, not him.
Milhouse: Whether it figured in the final decision is irrelevant.
Of course it’s relevant to any criminal charge. If the evidence wasn’t used to make a determination, then it was not material — by definition.
Federal Rule 401: “fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action”.
Milhouse: But you can’t deny that the short-term consequence in this case would be to make the republic safer.
Of course we can. Locking people up without trial strikes at the heart of the Republic, nor is it the case that Soros is even a threat to the Republic.
Milhouse: The fact is that nobody fulminating against Soros is doing so because he happens to be a Jew; most are probably not even aware of it.
Sure. It’s just a ubiquitous coincidence.
That Soros is a threat to the republic is obvious to all. And it can hardly be “ubiquitous” when there’s only one of him. That he was born to a Jewish mother is the coincidence. There’s nothing Jewish about his lifestyle or his upbringing. How many people are even aware of his ancestry? And what’s your evidence that anyone cares about it? You’re just making it up, the way you people desperately pretend that the opposition to 0bama was only because he was black, or that the opposition to Mrs Clinton is only because she’s a woman, as if a white person who behaved like 0bama, or a man who behaved like H. Clinton would get a pass.
Milhouse: That Soros is a threat to the republic is obvious to all.
Clearly not all, as we certainly do not agree. Among the “not all”, Soros has received multiple awards, and the Financial Times called him “a standard bearer for liberal democracy, an idea under siege from populists” when they awarded him Person of the Year in 2018.
Milhouse: There’s nothing Jewish about his lifestyle or his upbringing.
Like we said, it’s purely a coincidence that a “rich conniving Jew” is at the bottom of every right-wing conspiracy theory.