On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, fundamentally, Manhattan authorities could access the president’s tax returns (although they referred the case for further proceedings). Donald Trump had filed a lawsuit to try and block his personal accounting firm from complying with a subpoena that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office had issued, but seven out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court ruled against the president. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance had originally subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns as part of an investigation into the Trump Organization’s role in a criminal hush money scheme targeting women with whom the president had affairs. In a public statement after the new ruling, Vance praised the “tremendous victory” for the rule of law.
In Trump v. Vance, #SCOTUS hands President Trump a defeat in battle with NY district attorney, holding that a subpoena to a sitting president does not have to meet a heightened standard
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 9, 2020
‘This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law. Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.’
Profoundly important 7-2 victory in Vance v. Trump: No absolute immunity from state and local grand jury subpoenas for Trump’s financial records to investigate his crimes as a private citizen. Being president doesn’t confer the kind of categorical shield Trump claimed.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) July 9, 2020
In the Supreme Court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts — who is an appointee of George W. Bush — explained how there are literal hundreds of years of legal precedent outlining how a president is not immune from basic legal standards like complying with a subpoena. As he explained, all the way back in an 1807 case involving Aaron Burr, then-Circuit Justice for Virginia John Marshall ruled that a president’s duties as commander-in-chief and chief executive did not preclude them from complying with a subpoena.
‘In the two centuries since Burr, successive Presidents from Monroe to Clinton have accepted Marshall’s ruling that the Chief Executive is subject to subpoena and have uniformly agreed to testify when called in criminal proceedings.’
Yet, Trump wanted special treatment, which he’s simply not going to get.
7-2 in the Vance case!
Trump loses!
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) July 9, 2020
In his own public meltdown after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump freaked out about the supposed unfair treatment that he’s getting. He tweeted:
‘The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!’
What — does Trump now want to convince observers that seven out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, including two that he nominated, are in on some kind of political prosecution against him? Ha! Nope; the truth is that Trump lost.
The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
Courts in the past have given “broad deference”. BUT NOT ME!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020
