SUPREME COURT SAYS N.Y. GRAND JURY CAN GET TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS

[EasyAce]

The upshot of today's two decisions is that the Supreme Court thoroughly rebuffed Trump's most sweeping assertion of executive power while also casting doubt on the House Oversight Committee's broad claim of congressional power.

---Damon Root [author of Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court (Palgrave Macmillan)], Reason, from "Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh Reject Trump's Assertion of 'Absolute Immunity' From State Criminal Subpoenas."

Also from that article:

Trump lost big in Trump v. Vance. At issue was a subpoena filed by the New York County District Attorney's Office seeking financial records from Mazars USA, LLP, the longtime accounting firm of both Trump and various businesses tied to him. Trump's lawyers told the Supreme Court that the president should enjoy "absolute immunity" from such state legal actions while in office. As the Court put it, Trump "argues that the Supremacy Clause gives a sitting President absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with those subpoenas would categorically impair a President's performance of his Article II functions."

The Supreme Court resoundingly rejected that position. "Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts. "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 other words, the Manhattan district attorney may ultimately obtain Trump's financial records . . .

. . . Trump fared a little better in today's second subpoena case. At issue in Trump v. Mazars was an effort by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to obtain eight years of Trump's financial records from his accounting firm. The key question was whether the congressional committee had a "legitimate legislative purpose" in seeking those documents . . . That argument seemed to resonate with the Court . . . But the majority stopped short of actually ruling in Trump's favor. In fact, the justices essentially punted the case back down to the lower courts . . .

[aligncare]

I hope people here understand that “Trump's most sweeping assertion of executive power” was an assertion the Trump legal team made deliberately knowing that it wouldn’t fly, but would accomplish delaying a district court ruling until after the election when its political impact would be mooted by a Trump victory.