The Supreme Court just jumped into the political deep end with Trump taxes lawsuit
Washington (CNN)On the same day that a Democratic-led US House committee voted for articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court made its own momentous decision to intervene in Trump's effort to keep his tax returns and other financial records secret.
The
justices agreed to resolve in spring 2020 if a sitting president should
be immune from any criminal proceeding, whether related to conduct
before taking office or even -- to use Trump's famed example -- shooting someone on Fifth Avenue in New York.
The high court also said it would determine the oversight authority of
Congress in paired disputes arising from attempts by House Democrats to
obtain Trump's financial documents.
The secret why Trump won't release his taxes 07:25
The
eventual decisions would help define the high court in the Trump era,
especially as Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to carefully navigate
Trump-related litigation and regularly declares that the justices are
above politics.
Roberts,
who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005, has tried to
shield the judiciary from the polarization in Washington, stepping up
his efforts after the contentious confirmations of Trump appointees Neil
Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Last year, Roberts admonished Trump and said judges should not be labeled as "Obama judges" or "Trump judges," but rather as neutral decision-makers.
That
notion might be especially challenged with these new cases and rulings
that would come by the end of June, when the justices traditionally
recess for the summer, and just as the 2020 presidential election is
intensifying.
The
Supreme Court is already a flashpoint in the presidential election
campaign. The nine justices are deeply divided among ideological lines.
The five Republican-appointed conservatives often comprise the majority,
with the four Democratic-appointed liberals dissenting.
Depending
on who wins in 2020, the next president could further entrench that
divide, or, alternatively, upset it. Three of the justices are in their
70s and 80s: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will be 87 in 2020; Stephen Breyer who will be 82; and Clarence Thomas who will be 72.
Even
before Friday's move, the Supreme Court's calendar was loaded with
important social dilemmas. It is poised to rule in the next year on new
state abortion regulations, LGBT rights in the workplace, and the legal
status of hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants.
Now,
all nine will be thrust into a high-stakes battle between the executive
branch and Congress, as well as the longstanding controversy regarding
Trump's refusal to make public his tax returns.
None
of the three cases involve Trump's official actions as President. They
trace to his business dealings before taking office, such as possibly
directing "hush money" to women who have claimed they had affairs with
him.
In all three cases the
justices are scheduled to hear in March, lower court judges grounded
their decisions against Trump in decades-old Supreme Court precedent
that would allow a President to be subpoenaed or sued. So, any reversal
would be startling.
Running out the clock
The
acceptance of a case for review does not determine the outcome.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's brief order on Friday signals that at
least four justices -- the number required to grant a case a hearing --
believe Trump has a legitimate claim in his assertions that a president
should be protected from state investigation while in office and
similarly shielded from broad congressional oversight.
On
a practical level, even though Trump lost the early rounds on all these
disputes, he has nonetheless prevailed in running the clock and
fighting subpoenas that were issued months ago.
In
urging the justices not to hear Trump's effort to block a subpoena to
his longtime accountants Mazars USA, lawyers for the US House noted that
House members are elected for two-year terms, so further delays would
"prevent the people's representatives from carrying out their
constitutional duties in the limited remaining time they possess."
Trump's
lawyers countered that if the high court failed to intervene, elected
officials would use their subpoena authority to try to find "dirt" on
political rivals: "Intrusive subpoenas into personal lives of Presidents
will become our new normal in times of divided government -- no matter
which party is in power."
Can a president be investigated while in office?
By the time the justices take up these cases, any House impeachment and Senate trial would be over.
The
House's inquiry arose from Trump's dealings with Ukraine. These new
cases involve Trump's refusal to make public tax returns and other
financial records dating back about a decade.
In
the New York grand jury case, testing a subpoena sought by Manhattan
District Attorney Cy Vance, Trump's lawyers have asserted that he is
absolutely immune from any criminal investigation -- not only from
indictment, which had been common understanding -- while he holds
office.
The
lower court ruling in this case, Trump v. Vance, was narrow. "(A)fter
reviewing historical and legal precedent," the New York-based appeals
court said, "we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar
the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party
to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under
investigation pertains to the President."
A
Supreme Court decision could sweep more expansively, just as any ruling
related to House investigations could break ground on the separation of
powers.
On
issues from immigration to impeachment, Trump has suggested he could
turn to the Supreme Court to rescue him and uphold his administration's
policies. It also was not lost on Trump that he was helped in his 2016
campaign by a pending vacancy on high court.
As he tweeted last year, "The Supreme Court is one of the main reasons I got elected President."
No comments