[ad_1]
The judges of the Supreme Court of EE. USA They appeared divided on Tuesday as they considered President Donald Trump’s attempt to prevent Democrat-led panels of Congress from obtaining his financial records, and his conservative majority appears to be concerned about improper harassment of the president by politicians.
In a showdown over presidential powers, the judges asked tough questions to a Trump attorney and a Justice Department attorney who tried to justify a refusal to comply with subpoenas from three House of Representatives committees for financial records. But the judges also pressured a House attorney to explain why the subpoenas were not simply harassment of the Republican president.
The judges asked the House attorney whether Congress should limit itself in issuing subpoenas so as not to distract a president or frustrate the performance of his official duties.
All nine judges heard an oral argument that lasted more than 90 minutes via teleconference about attempts by House of Representatives committees to obtain the records in a couple of cases that test Congress’s authority to supervise the president.
Conservative majority
Trump has tried to block the enforcement of subpoenas by House of Representatives committees seeking his financial records from Mazars LLP, his long-standing accounting firm, and two banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
The judges then opened an oral argument in a third case that involved Trump’s attempt to block the enforcement of a subpoena from the New York City prosecutor for Trump’s financial records. The lower courts in Washington and New York ruled against Trump in all three cases.
The Supreme Court has a conservative majority of five to four, including two judges appointed by Trump. Liberal judges seemed more sympathetic to the House’s position, although they also expressed concern over the possible lack of limits on their ability to cite the president’s personal records.
The judges asked Trump’s attorney, Patrick Strawbridge, about whether politicians can cite a president’s financial records. Conservative Court President John Roberts asked Mr. Strawbridge about the broad scope of his arguments.
“Do you recognize any power in the House to subpoena personal documents from the President?” Judge Roberts asked.
Mr. Strawbridge replied that it was “difficult to imagine” a situation where that would be justified.
Judge Roberts’ questions about lawyers representing both Trump and the House of Representatives expressed his opinion on the need to strike a balance between the powers of the President and Congress. On the one hand, he expressed skepticism that Congress did not have the authority to issue a subpoena or that a court could guess his motivations for doing so, while doubting that the power of Congress was unlimited.
“Should a court investigate the mental processes of legislators? Should members of House committees be subject to questioning as to why you were really looking for these documents? Judge Roberts asked Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Wall.
A skeptical chief justice
Trump’s attorneys have argued that congressional panels had no authority to issue the citations and had no valid legislative reason to search the records.
Judge Roberts also seemed skeptical of a House attorney’s arguments that politicians have broad authority to investigate a president for the purpose of drafting laws.
“Your test is not a great test. It is not a limitation, “he told House Representative Doug Letter, adding that the House had to keep in mind that it was dealing with another co-equal branch of government.
Trump, unlike other recent presidents, has declined to release his tax returns and other financial records that could shed light on his net worth and the activities of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Organization.
The content of these records remains an enduring mystery of his presidency.
Conservative judge Neil Gorsuch, one of those appointed by Trump in court, expressed concern about politicians who abuse the subpoena process and seek illegal conduct from a political rival.
“We normally use law enforcement tools like subpoenas to investigate known crimes and not prosecute people to find crimes,” said Judge Gorsuch.
Liberal judge Stephen Breyer asked whether under the approach taken by Trump’s lawyers, Congress could have adequately investigated the Watergate scandal of the 1970s under then-President Richard Nixon.
Liberal judge Elena Kagan noted that when it comes to personal records, “the president is just a man.”
“What I think you are asking us to do is put a kind of 10-ton weight on the balance between the President and Congress, and essentially make it impossible for Congress to monitor and carry out its duties, Judge Kagan she said to Mr. Strawbridge.
Anti-corruption laws
Conservative judges seemed to differ on whether the court had a role in investigating the motives behind the subpoenas. Trump’s attorneys have said the investigations are intended to investigate the president for wrongdoing, while the House said he was looking for possible anti-corruption legislation.
Judge Roberts and Judge Gorsuch seemed to doubt Congress’s doubts, while Judge Clarence Thomas and Judge Samuel Alito seemed more skeptical of the Democrats’ motives.
“Why should we not defer the opinions of the House on its own legislative purposes?” Judge Gorsuch asked, suggesting skepticism about one of the President’s arguments.
Wall said allowing House subpoenas to lead to presidents being “harassed” for their personal lives.
“The potential to harass and undermine the president as president is obvious,” Wall told the judges. “It’s not too much to ask that before the House delves into the president’s personal life, he somehow explains what laws he is considering and why he needs the president’s documents in particular. The citations here don’t even come close. “
The third case concerns a subpoena issued to Mazars for similar information, including tax returns, as part of a grand jury investigation into Trump conducted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s office, a Democrat.
Three months after Trump avoided his impeachment in a impeachment trial in the Senate, his lawyers want the Supreme Court to endorse his expansive vision of presidential powers that would severely limit the ability of Congress to supervise presidents and prosecutors to investigate them. .
Trump has scored key victories in the higher court, including over his hard-line immigration policies. But he lost a big case a year ago from the US census. USA When Judge Roberts joined the four liberals in court.
Failures are likely to occur in a few weeks, with Trump seeking re-election on November 3 amid the coronavirus pandemic. The conference call format was adopted during the pandemic.
House of Representatives committees have said they are seeking the material as part of investigations into possible money laundering by banks and whether Trump inflated and deflated certain assets in the financial statements, as his former attorney has said. personal, in part to reduce your real estate. taxes. – Reuters
[ad_2]