Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Five takeaways from Supreme Court’s rulings on Trump tax returns

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court handed down a split decision Thursday that upheld a New York state prosecutor’s authority to access President Trump’s tax returns but dealt a defeat to congressional Democrats who also sought Trump’s records. 

The overlapping efforts to nab the president’s financial paper trail presented the justices with a gordian knot of intersecting legal conflicts dealing with presidential immunity, Congress’s investigative authority and the power of state prosecutors to gather evidence linked to a sitting president.

While the justices untangled some of the thorniest issues, key questions remain unanswered as the cases proceed back down to lower courts for further resolution. Continue reading.

Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now

Washington Post logoThe Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s bold claims of immunity from local law enforcement and congressional investigators, delivering a nuanced and likely landmark lesson on the separation of powers and limits of presidential authority.

In one of two lopsided 7-to-2 rulings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected Trump’s argument that he did not have to comply with a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and said Vance had authority to pursue the president’s personal and business financial records.

In the other, the court said the restrictions the president proposed on congressional demands for private, nonprivileged information “risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutors can obtain Trump’s financial records

Axios logoThe Supreme Court on Thursday kept the fight over President Trump’s financial records alive, all but ensuring that those records won’t be made public before the election.

The big picture: The court ruled that presidents are not immune from investigation, denying Trump the sweeping grant of presidential power he had asked for. But the legal wrangling over Trump’s records, specifically, will continue — and they may end up in the hands of Manhattan prosecutors.

Driving the news: In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the court ruled that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance has the legal right to subpoena records from Trump’s financial institutions, while rejecting, at least for now, the House’s effort to subpoena similar records. Continue reading.

Supreme Court sides with religious schools in discrimination suits

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a pair of Los Angeles-area Catholic schools are immune from discrimination suits brought by two former teachers in a decision that expands the scope of First Amendment safeguards for religious employers.

The 7-2 decision broadens the so-called ministerial exception, a First Amendment doctrine that prohibits lawsuits by employees who are considered ministers due to the religious nature of their work.

The former teachers are Agnes Morrissey-Berru, who says she suffered age discrimination, and now-deceased Kristen Biel, whose widower said Biel’s school fired her in violation of disability laws while she battled breast cancer. Continue reading.

Supreme Court hands victory to school voucher lobby – will religious minorities, nonbelievers and state autonomy lose out?

The Supreme Court’s recent decision that Montana cannot exclude donations that go to religious schools from a small tax credit program could have consequences felt far beyond the state.

The 5-4 ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which came down June 30, follows on from recent cases that have expanded what counts as discrimination against religion under the U.S. Constitution, making it harder for states to deny grants to faith-based institutions.

From my perspective as a scholar of law and religion, this latest ruling could massively limit states’ ability to exclude religious schools from all sorts of funding, including controversial voucher programs which allow state funds to be used by parents to send children to a private school. And rather than preventing religious discrimination, the court’s decision may actually support a system that discriminates against religious minorities and those of no faith. Continue reading.

Supreme Court rules states can penalize faithless electors

Axios logoThe Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states can penalize faithless electors, the members of the Electoral College who do not support the winner of their state’s popular vote in a presidential election.

Why it matters: The 2016 presidential election saw 10 electors vote for someone other than their state’s chosen candidate — highlighting how faithless electors could have the potential to swing an election.

  • 32 states and Washington, D.C. require their electors to cast their Electoral College votes for the winner of their respective statewide popular vote.
  • Before 2016, a modern presidential election had never seen more than one faithless elector — prompting states to move ahead with their legal challenge.

Continue reading.

Supreme Court to hear dispute over Democrats’ access to Mueller materials

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up the dispute over House Democrats’ access to redacted grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

The court is expected to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, meaning any newly redacted material would likely not be made public until after the November elections.

The decision to grant the appeal means at least four of the court’s nine justices agreed to hear the dispute, with a decision due by the end of the court’s term in June 2021. Continue reading.

Trump’s Supreme Court tax case in context

Roll Call asked a legal scholar how the case compares to others involving the limits of presidential power cases

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision regarding release of President Donald Trump’s tax returns as soon as early next week.

In May, Trump’s lawyers presented several arguments urging the court to shield his returns.

The legal team argued Congress must set a higher bar to issue a subpoena to a president, and that a president is immune from all investigations, both federal and state, while in office. Continue reading.

Trump has no patience for legal intricacies. The Supreme Court is all about them.

Washington Post logoPresident Trump asked his Twitter followers: “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”

A definitive answer might be difficult without doses of truth serum. But it should be clear by now that at least five of the nine justices have trust issues with the president and his administration.

Trump on Friday went from lambasting the “horrible & politically charged” Supreme Court setback he suffered the day before to labeling it a no-big-deal “request” for “enhanced papers.” His goal remains dismantling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Continue reading.

Trump’s effort to resist gay rights runs into his Supreme Court pick

Washington Post logoDonald Trump ran for president four years ago with a conflicted message on gay rights meant to simultaneously broaden his appeal and fire up his base. He vaguely embraced the rhetoric of social progress while also saying he would “seriously consider” a Supreme Court justice who would once again outlaw same-sex marriage.

But the court’s decision Monday to extend workplace protections to gay and transgender employees underscored the significant challenge Trump will face as he continues to try to play both sides of the rapidly evolving issue during his reelection campaign.

While still celebrating the idea of social change — recently boasting of appointing the first openly gay man to the level of Cabinet secretary — his administration has repeatedly opted to resist or roll back protections for gay, lesbian and transgender people in a nod to his more conservative supporters. And his first pick to the high court, Neil M. Gorsuch, is now responsible for writing the most impactful ruling for gay rights since same-sex marriage was codified as a constitutional right in 2015. Continue reading.