SCOTUS Gives Itself More Time On Trump’s Financial Records | Predicting How Roberts Might Rule On Trump’s Executive Power
November 26, 2019
HOLD PLEASE
|The Supreme Court yesterday temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling that would have required PRESIDENT TRUMP’S accounting firm to turn over his financial records to the the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Adam Liptak with The New York Times reports, “The court’s stay was in one sense routine, maintaining the status quo while the court decides whether to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal in the case. But it also suggested, given that it takes five votes to grant a stay, that the court viewed the legal questions presented by the case as substantial enough to warrant further consideration.”
GET BACK TO ME
|Robert Barnes with The Washington Post also reports on the Supreme Court’s temporary hold on the case concerning the president’s financial records. Barnes explains, “The court instructed Trump’s lawyers to file a petition by Dec. 5 stating why the court should accept the case for full briefing and oral argument. If the petition is eventually denied, the lower-court ruling will go into effect. If accepted, the case probably will be heard this term, with a decision before the court adjourns at the end of June.”
READING THE TEA LEAVES
|“It is doubtful that the court would issue this unusual order if they planned to turn Trump away in a few weeks. More likely, the justices wanted to punt, putting off any real resolution for the time being. By doing so, however, they are only building anticipation for a fairly epic battle down the road.” That’s Mark Joseph Stern with Slate making some predictions about what SCOTUS may do next in considering Trump’s tax return case. Stern suggests, “CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS—who is almost certainly the swing vote in this case—will soon have to decide whether to run interference for Trump or respect Congress’ oversight authority. This dispute will reveal whether Roberts is more faithful to the Constitution or the Trump administration’s deranged view of unbridled executive power. There is good reason to believe that the chief justice will side with the rule of law.”
ICYMI
|The Supreme Court yesterday took a few actions of consequence in cases that are — or were — being watched quite closely. SCOTUS decided to allow a prominent climate scientist’s defamation lawsuit to continue against the National Review and a libertarian think tank. Without comment, the high court also said it would not review a Maryland court’s decision rejecting a new trial for Adnan Syed, whose murder conviction was thrown into question after being featured on the podcast “Serial.” Additionally, the Supreme Court tossed back a challenge to Alaska’s limits on campaign contributions to the Ninth Circuit, asking the lower court to “revisit whether Alaska’s contribution limits are consistent with our First Amendment precedents.”
PRESIDENTIAL SABOTAGE?
|Monday, the Supreme Court also announced that it won’t hear Paul v. United States, a case asking whether a federal law delegates too much authority to the Justice Department to determine whether certain sex offenders need to register with the government. It’s the same issue that the Supreme Court considered last term, in the case of Gundy v. United States. BRETT KAVANAUGH didn’t participate in the Gundy case, but he did however release an opinion this week as to why he thought SCOTUS should not hear the Paul case. Ian Millhiser with Vox opines that this new opinion from Kavanaugh should terrify Democrats as it suggests the high court now has the five votes it would need to “sabotage the next presidency.” Millhiser writes, “Kavanaugh’s Paul opinion suggests that he would restrict federal power even more than Gorsuch would. It’s impossible to exaggerate the importance of this issue. Countless federal laws, from the Clean Air Act to the Affordable Care Act, lay out a broad federal policy and delegate to an agency the power to implement the details of that policy. Under Kavanaugh’s approach, many of these laws are unconstitutional, as are numerous existing regulations governing polluters, health providers, and employers. A revolution against the regulatory state looms on the horizon, and the biggest losers are likely to be Democrats who hope to regain the White House in 2020.”
BRING THE BEAT IN
|Nina Totenberg with NPR notes that JUSTICE GINSBURG was back at the Supreme Court on Monday “in her role as the court’s musical impresario.” Totenberg explains, “Every year at this time, Ginsburg hosts a Supreme Court concert to kick off the holiday season. Aided by Washington Performing Arts, she chooses the artists to perform for the justices and about 100 or more other guests at the court. At the concert she introduces the musicians, describing their careers, family lives, and critical successes.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Time For Term Limits For Federal Courts
Washington Examiner“Term limits wouldn’t fix decades of court politicization and incivility in campaigning, but it would ameliorate those problems somewhat. The Kavanaugh confirmation nearly tore the country apart, even though Kennedy had been very careful and methodical about his retirement. Just imagine how dark the war for Ginsburg’s seat will be if it results from her sudden passing.”
Conservative Hypocrisy Makes Its Case At The Supreme Court
The New York Times“From immigration, abortion and the use of public funding on religious schools to gun rights and L.G.B.T. rights, conservatives are understandably hopeful the newly aligned court will hand down a wave of victories on social issues that divide the nation. For progressives, this might seem worrisome enough. But there’s a whiff of something even more troubling beneath the surface: raw hypocrisy. In several major cases this term, conservatives are relying on arguments that both they and the court have explicitly rejected as a matter of principle over the last five decades.”
No, The Supreme Court Is Not Going To Stop Trump Impeachment
Intelligencer“The objection to Roberts, like the objections to the legitimacy of impeachment itself, is just grist for unfocused ‘witch hunt’ allegations designed to get the president’s MAGA base riled up, and to throw sand in the eyes of the small number of voters who are undecided about impeachment and/or open to persuasion in 2020. We’ll hear more kvetching from Trump and his friends until the day the impeachment trial ends, when they will then shift to the exultant claim that he has been ‘exonerated.'”
OTHER NEWS
One Of The Supreme Court's Most Important Abortion Cases Since Roe v. Wade Has Just Begun
CBS News“The lawsuit that will decide the future of abortion access in Louisiana – and the rest of the country – is officially underway. A 63-page opening brief was filed late Monday night by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) in a Supreme Court case that could leave Louisiana without access to legal abortion and provide a roadmap for other anti-abortion access states to follow.”
Guns And Mootness At Center Of Supreme Court's Next Big Battle
ABA Journal“Each session of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court this term has at least one potential blockbuster case, and for December it is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, which will be argued Dec. 2. It is a potentially enormously important case about the Second Amendment. But the law being challenged in this litigation has been repealed, and a major issue is whether the case should be dismissed as moot.”