Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020

New York Times logoJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health scare raised the question of how the Senate would handle a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year.

WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.

But would it?

That was the case in 2016 when Senate Republicans stonewalledPresident Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to fill an opening that occurred with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure. “Let the people decide,” was the Republican mantra at the time, as they argued that it was improper to consider Mr. Obama’s nominee when voters were only months away from electing a new president who should get the opportunity to make his or her own choice on a Supreme Court justice.

View the complete November 29 article by Carl Hulse on The New York Times website here.

As Trump cases arrive, Supreme Court’s desire to be seen as neutral arbiter will be tested

Washington Post logoThe legal cases concerning President Trump, his finances and his separation-of-powers disputes with Congress are moving like a brush fire to the Supreme Court, and together provide both potential and challenge for the Roberts court in its aspiration to be seen as nonpartisan.

he court, composed of five conservatives nominated by Republican presidents and four liberals chosen by Democrats, has little choice but to step onto a fiercely partisan battleground.

It announced Tuesday that it will consider on Dec. 13 whether to schedule a full briefing and argument on the president’s request that it overturn a lower-court ruling giving New York prosecutors access to Trump’s tax returns and other financial records in their investigation of ­hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

View the complete November 26 article by Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow on The Washington Post website here.

Supreme Court stays House subpoena for Trump financial records

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Monday granted President Trump’s request to temporarily stay a subpoena for his financial records from the House Oversight and Reform Committee while the court considers whether to take up his appeal in the case.

Trump filed an emergency request on Nov. 15 to the Supreme Court asking the justices to block a subpoena from House Democrats after a lower court said his accounting firm must turn over his financial documents.

The justices gave Trump until noon on Dec. 5 to file a formal petition to the court.

View the complete November 25 article by John Kruzel on The Hill website here.

Supreme Court precedents do not shield Trump financial records, House, prosecutors argue

Washington Post logoThere is no precedent for keeping a House committee from examining President Trump’s financial records, lawyers for the House told the Supreme Court on Thursday, and “each day of delay harms Congress by depriving it of important information it needs to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.”

House General Counsel Doug N. Letter said in a brief that the court’s precedents involving Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton make clear that the chief executive enjoys no special privilege to be free from investigation or legal action.

The Supreme Court “has established that even a private citizen may invoke the courts’ subpoena power against the president in appropriate cases,” the brief states. “In light of that settled law, it would hardly make sense to say that Congress, a coordinate branch, cannot use its own subpoena power in a matter involving the president.”

View the complete November 21 article by Robert Barnes on The Washington Post website here.

Supreme Court temporarily blocks House subpoena of Trump financial records

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay of an appeals court ruling that granted House Democrats access to President Trump‘s financial records, Chief Justice John Roberts announced Monday.

Trump’s lawyers had appealed the ruling, which was set to go into effect Wednesday.

The subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee will be unenforceable while the Supreme Court decides whether to take up the case or prolong Roberts’s administrative stay. The panel is seeking eight years of Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm.

View the complete November 18 article by Harper Neidig on The Hill website here.

Trump appeals to Supreme Court to keep tax returns from NY prosecutors

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Thursday appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a court order requiring his accountants to hand over eight years of tax returns, in a dramatic escalation of his fight to keep his financial records private.

Trump’s request comes after a federal appeals court in New York last week said Manhattan prosecutors could enforce a subpoena against Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA for his personal and corporate financial records from 2011 to 2018.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s personal lawyers called the records request “politically motivated,” and said the subpoena should not be allowed to pierce the immunity the Constitution gives to the president.

View the complete November 14 article by John Kruzel on The Hill website here.

How the Trump Administration Eroded Its Own Legal Case on DACA

New York Times logoWhen the Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday, the administration’s attempts to end the program protecting “Dreamers” could rest on a top aide’s actions in 2017.

WASHINGTON — When Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared before news cameras at the Justice Department in early September 2017 to announce that President Trump was ending deportation protections for young undocumented immigrants, he knew the administration had left itself more legally vulnerable than it should have.

At a contentious meeting in the White House Roosevelt Room several days earlier, Elaine C. Duke, then the acting secretary of homeland security, had broken with the rest of Mr. Trump’s team and balked at its demand that she issue a memo ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program known as DACA that shields immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Continue reading “How the Trump Administration Eroded Its Own Legal Case on DACA”

Trump DACA fight hits Supreme Court

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments over President Trump‘s move to end Obama-era protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, in one of the most closely watched cases of its term.

The controversy over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is at the center of a two-year, contentious political fight between Democrats and Trump over immigration. And it presents high stakes for both parties and the court as the justices again review a controversial Trump policy.

A ruling could change the deportation status of nearly 700,000 people and is expected to come next summer, just months before the 2020 election.

View the complete November 11 article by John Kruzel and Rafael Bernal on The Hill website here.

Trump Tax Return Case Confronts Supreme Court With a Momentous Choice

New York Times logoRichard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton sustained unanimous losses when they sought to withhold evidence, suggesting that President Trump may face an uphill fight.

WASHINGTON — In a matter of days, President Trump will ask the Supreme Court to rule on his bold claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal investigation while he remains in office. If the court agrees to hear the case, its decision is likely to produce a major statement on the limits of presidential power — and to test the independence of the court itself.

Mr. Trump has been the subject of countless investigations and lawsuits since he took office, including a 22-month inquiry by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel appointed to look into his campaign’s ties to Russia. But the new case, concerning an investigation by Manhattan prosecutors into hush-money payments to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump, will be the Supreme Court’s first chance to consider the president’s arguments that he is beyond the reach of the justice system.

The case concerns a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat. On Monday, the federal appeals court in Manhattan rejected Mr. Trump’s request to block the subpoena, which seeks eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns.

View the complete November 5 article by Adam Lipton on The New York Times website here.

Divisive docket to test Supreme Court ahead of 2020

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court is poised to rule on a range of controversial political issues in its current term, potentially putting the high court’s broad popularity with the public to the test.

The court’s docket this term will have the justices weighing in on workplace rights for gay and transgender people, the first major Second Amendment case in nearly a decade, new restrictions on abortion and President Trump‘s rollback of deportation protections for thousands of undocumented immigrants.

On top of the hot-button political issues, a number of Trump’s various legal battles with congressional Democrats and states seem destined to reach the Supreme Court. If they do, the justices will also be faced with constitutional questions about the powers of the president.

View the complete October 31 article by Harper Neidig on The Hill website here.