7-2 decision in the NY Subpoena case with Roberts (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch concur) writing the opinion. Article II doesn't require a heightened standard for a subpoena of a sitting president. However, the case got remanded back to the district court so this is really a punt. This will get litigated into oblivion in my opinion so they'll never see the actual returns before the election. The case on Congress's subpoena is coming out shortly. Also mildly ironic that Trump's two appointments vote with the majority.
Unless he is committing blatant tax fraud year after year, how in any world would a tax return show his net wealth or other seemingly sensitive information.
Congressional inquiry case is also posted. 7-2 decision (same justices) as the NY Subpoena case. The final section of Roberts's opinion (which overturned the lower courts). Edit - As suspected, this is a punt. Roberts basically ordered the lower courts to reconsider the case. Like the other case, no one is seeing any returns before the election. When Congress seeks information “needed for intelligent legislative action,” it “unquestionably” remains “the duty of all citizens to cooperate.” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (emphasis added). Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The first decision seems to be "don't put this MAJOR constitutional question" on us to decide for presidential immunity. So far a major loss for Trump, BUT... there's still the ability for Trump to run out the clock.... which is probably exactly what Trump's tactic was here to begin with.
He's going to run out the clock on both cases. Roberts wrote both opinions in a way to where he's asking lower courts to relitigate the whole thing (but now the president can't argue absolute immunity anymore). So basically, this won't be resolved until after the election.
My take... the USSC delayed this decision to the last possible day (into July, rare timing) because they knew legally they couldn't spare trump and in fact, wanted to ensure future Presidents couldn't skate such release in the future, and also sending it back down to lower courts with an eye on the calendar and the belief (hope) trump loses in November.
I think the Supreme Court is NOT the place for bold decisions honestly. It's sort of the point of the high court, and why its there. It's not supposed to be an activist institution. Which is a shame that it acts that way on some issues that favor billionaires, and social conservatives. But on this issue in a vacuum, they are making the right decision here to keep this larger issue of presidential immunity out of a supreme court decision.
In the other decision... do we get to collect back rent (though my family is from New Mexico, so I guess I won't get any)?
As with most other parts of our American institutions, the stain of trump will have long-lasting effects...
There was a third case today (that was quite consequentional). In McGirt v Oklahoma, the court ruled that HALF of Oklahoma is technically a Native American reservation (this land includes all of Tulsa). Gorsuch joined the liberals (as he does frequently on cases involving Native Americans) and ruled that Congress never dieestablished the reservations in Oklahoma that existed before statehood. This means that tribe members can't be prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma, and the tribes in Oklahoma can form a tribal government and assert control over de-evolved policy areas.
We are more likely to die from COVID than see Trump’s financial docs at this point. This is still a win for Trump, even if there is likely nothing specifically damning in the requested documents because even if he has to comply he gets to continue to prosecute this and will likely run out the clock.
I can understand that premise BUT there is precedent for the Supreme Court to rule in these areas. The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that Nixon had to hand over the unedited tapes and other materials. In fact in that case, Nixon (like Trump) argued that he had absolute immunity via his executive privilege claims but the court (like the current court) ruled that such absolute claims didn't exist. However, in the Nixon case, the court ordered the president to immediately deliver all unedited subpoena materials to the district court.
Vance's statement. Only missing the part that future Presidents are not above the law (since this one still is above the law)... I guess I should point out, it wasn't just over tax returns but all congressional subpoenas, and I am certain we will see trump and his admin continue to ignore subpoenas through the rest of their time in power...
on income tax returns, the tendency is to under-report income / market value of properties / assets on the other end of spectrurm, on loan applications, there is a tendency to inflate these info the info on Trump's tax returns can to used to corroborate / identify false info on his loan apps, which is a crime in NY state
