More Than Three Hours Of Debate Over Trump Financial Records | The Stakes Could Not Be Higher For SCOTUS, For Trump, For Democracy
May 12, 2020
THE BIG ONE
|The Supreme Court this morning heard arguments over PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial records, and the justices were particularly punchy. For more than three hours, justices grilled lawyers about whether Trump can shield his financial records and tax returns from Congress and from a New York prosecutor. It’s hard to overstate just how significant the outcome of the three cases heard today could be. SCOTUS could potentially expand the power of the president by limiting Congress’ oversight powers and its ability to investigate a sitting president. Of course, this isn’t the first time separation-of-powers disputes have come before SCOTUS. Both times the court ruled unanimously against PRESIDENT NIXON and later PRESIDENT CLINTON. The conservative justices all appeared likely to side with arguments from the Trump, although CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS was particularly hard to read today.
CAN SCOTUS HAVE ITS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO
|“On one hand, both liberal and some conservative justices challenged the president’s lawyers and the Justice Department to defend Trump’s refusal to comply with subpoenas seeking information from his accountant and bankers. The House wants the documents for legislative reasons, the prosecutors for a grand jury investigation. On the other hand, all the conservatives and some liberal justices wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking private data going back a decade and involving not only the president but members of his family.” Richard Wolf with USA Today suggests that the dilemma before justices today was best summed up by the newest justice of the court, BRETT KAVANAUGH, when he said, “How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?”
LOOKING FOR AN OFF-RAMP
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times notes in his report that some of the justices today raised the possibility of sending the cases over DONALD TRUMP’S financials back to lower courts for reconsideration under stricter standards. This, of course, would allow the high court to avoid making a decision before the November elections. Liptak also notes, “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.”
ON DECK
|Tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments in a case concerning “faithless electors.” Richard Wolf with USA Today previews the case and writes, “Election Day is Nov. 3, but the winner of the White House traditionally isn’t official until December, when 538 presidential electors confirm the results. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider giving those virtually unknown people more than perfunctory power. The justices, customarily allergic to politics, appear on track to decide a threshold question that haunts the way presidents and vice presidents are chosen: Must the men and women chosen on Election Day to cast ballots for the winner of their state’s popular vote keep their pledge? Or can they go rogue?”
LET'S GO SPLITSIES?
|David Savage with the Los Angeles Times reports the Supreme Court seemed to split yesterday over whether to “broadly deny civil rights protections to hundreds of thousands of teachers in religious schools.” Justices heard cases involving two people who were fired from Catholic schools in the Los Angeles area. The high court will have to determine whether the Constitution protects church schools from being sued if they discriminate against a teacher in violation of federal or state laws that protect workers. Savage writes, “Advocates for the teachers warned the justices that a broad ruling based on the church’s view of its religion mission could severely restrict the rights of millions of other employees in church-run hospitals, nursing homes, colleges, charities and childcare centers.”
YOU'VE MADE YOUR BED
|Mark Joseph Stern with Slate also reviews the cases that were before SCOTUS yesterday involving exemptions for religious employers. He notes that liberal justices of the court are in a tough spot. “On Monday, the Supreme Court heard two cases that require it to decide when an employee becomes a ‘minister’ and loses legal employment protections. The answer may be: whenever their boss says so. The cases would expand a doctrine announced in 2012, when the court unanimously granted religious employers a sweeping exception to civil rights laws. Back in 2012, many court watchers were surprised that the more liberal wing of the court would sign onto a ruling that carved a hole in nondiscrimination laws. It appears the liberal justices may now regret those votes.”
GOOD FOR YOU, NOT FOR ME
|Garrett Epps for The Atlantic called on LYLE DENNISTON, the legendary Supreme Court reporter, to see how he feels about the high court’s new teleconferencing format. Turns out, Denniston despises it.
GET IT WHILE IT'S HOT
|Tomorrow is the last day of oral arguments for the term. Be sure to listen in live — who knows whether the public will have access to live broadcasts when the Supreme Court resumes its hearings in the fall. But here’s hoping!