In 7-2 rulings in both cases, the justices rejected the president’s assertion that he enjoys absolute immunity while in office. Trump nominees Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the majorities.
By Robert Barnes Washington Post
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s assertion that he enjoys absolute immunity from investigation while in office, allowing a New York prosecutor to pursue a subpoena of the president’s private and business financial records.
In a separate case, the court sent a fight over congressional subpoenas for the material back to lower courts because of “significant separation of powers concerns.” Since both cases involve more work at the lower level, it seems unlikely the records would be available to the public before the election.
Combined, the decisions offer the court’s most detailed examination of presidential power and congressional authority in decades, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority in both 7-to-2 decisions. The court seemed to avoid some tough questions in an attempt to achieve greater agreement.
All members of the court rejected a sweeping claim of immunity promoted by the president and his lawyers.
“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’ ” Roberts wrote in the New York case, citing an ancient maxim. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. Vance
Trump nominees Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcomes of the cases. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
Trump reacted angrily, and inaccurately, on Twitter: “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion: Trump v. Mazars
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in a statement: “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.”AD
The president’s lawyer Jay Sekulow said in a 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 tax records. We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”
The majority said that while Trump could not avoid a subpoena, he could challenge the specifics of it. And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch emphasized that in their concurring opinion, noting the court “unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate.”
In the congressional case, the court tried to strike a balance between the chief executive and Congress, while lamenting that in the past, such conflicts were most often worked out between the political branches.AD
The court reinforced Congress’s broad investigative power, but said it is not limitless and must be more targeted when it comes to subpoenas for a president’s personal information.
Without limits, the court warned, “Congress could declare open season on the President’s information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions.”
The majority came up with a new four-part test for courts to analyze the validity of subpoenas aimed at the president.
Meet the Manhattan district attorney doing battle with President Trump in court
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.
