Roberts Sends Mixed Signals in Trump Financial-Record Clash

In this article

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts sent mixed signals on subpoenas by House Democrats for President Donald Trump’s financial information, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a constitutional showdown that could affect the November election.

Roberts questioned Trump’s contention that lawmakers lacked a legitimate legislative purpose for the subpoenas to his banks and accountants, asking the president’s lawyer whether the court should be “probing the mental processes” of lawmakers.

But Roberts also said a House lawyer was proposing a “limitless test” that didn’t “take account of the fact that we’re talking about a coordinate branch of government, the executive branch.”

The Supreme Court heard back-to-back telephone arguments Tuesday on Trump’s efforts to stop his banks and accountants from complying with subpoenas they have received from House Democrats and a New York prosecutor. Roberts’s vote is likely to be pivotal in both cases.

The court’s rulings could determine whether the president’s tax returns become public before November, and whether he will face an accelerated criminal investigation in New York. Democrats are trying to finally see the tax returns Trump refused to release as a candidate and then as president. Until Trump, every president dating back to Jimmy Carter made his returns public.

Some justices suggested they might be looking for a compromise. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both Democratic appointees, asked tough questions of both sides. Breyer said he was worried that the House was seeking “a lot of information, and some of it’s pretty vague.”

“The fact that what I hold today will also apply to a future Senator McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman exactly the same questions, that bothers me,” Breyer said.

‘10-Ton Weight’

Kagan told Trump’s lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge: “What it seems to me you’re asking us to do is to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress, and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned.”

At another point, however, Kagan said some of the House subpoenas were broader than others, hinting that she may be willing to back only some of the document demands.

Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees also asked questions of both sides. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Strawbridge, “Why should we not defer to the House’s view about its own legislative purposes?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked House General Counsel Douglas Letter, “The question then boils down to how can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency? How can the court balance those interests?”

Other justices suggested they would divide along ideological lines. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Democratic appointee, said she saw a “tremendous separation of powers problem” with Trump’s position.

Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican appointee, said the House position would mean “no protection against the use of congressional subpoenas for the purpose of preventing harassment of a president.”

Thomas Response

The subpoenas seek years of Trump’s personal financial records, as well as those of the Trump Organization and his other businesses. They are directed to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, and his banks, Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. The accountants and banks aren’t contesting the subpoenas and have said they will comply with their legal obligations.

Letter said that “not a single thing is required of the president or the White House.”

That brought a quick response from Justice Clarence Thomas. “I think we all know it’s about the president,” he said.

The Justice Department is largely backing Trump’s personal lawyers. In the House case, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the justices that lawmakers can’t subpoena the president’s personal records without a clear showing that the information is needed for a legitimate legislative purposes.

In the grand jury case, Trump contends the president has complete immunity from criminal investigations while in office. He says a president would be overwhelmed and distracted if every state prosecutor in the country could demand personal information, even if the subpoena goes to a third party.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to disguise hush payments to two women who claimed they had sex with Trump before he took office.

Source: Read Full Article