The Supreme Court issued major rulings today on subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records. Here is a quick rundown, compiled from Globe wire services and major media reports, of what happened.
Here’s what the cases were about
In one case, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. was seeking eight years of business and personal tax records in connection with his investigation of the role that President Trump and the Trump Organization played in hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 election. Trump and his company reimbursed Michael D. Cohen, the president’s former lawyer and fixer, for payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who said that she had an affair with Trump.
Trump’s lawyers argued that he was above the law while in office, immune from all criminal proceedings and investigations.
In the second case, committees in the US House of Representative were also trying to subpoena Trump’s financial records. The House Oversight and Reform Committee is investigating hush-money payments to Daniels and whether Trump inflated and deflated descriptions of his assets on financial statements to obtain loans and to reduce his taxes. The House Financial Services and Intelligence committees have sought an array of financial records related to the president, his companies, and his family.
Trump’s lawyers argued in this case that Congress did not have the power to obtain his records because it had no legislative need for them.
Here’s the bigger picture
The cases are a reminder of a major mystery surrounding Trump. The controversial, divisive president has consistently fought efforts to probe his finances, including steadfastly refusing to produce his tax returns from the time he was a candidate to now, as he nears the end of his term.
Many people have wondered why he has balked at disclosing his finances. He is the first president in four decades who hasn’t disclosed his tax returns. Theories abound. House Democrats and New York prosecutors have said the records may shed light on Trump’s foreign entanglements, possible conflicts of interest, whether he has paid his taxes, and whether his hush-money payments violated campaign finance laws.
Here’s how the court ruled
In the first case, the high court said Vance had the authority to subpoena the records from Trump’s private accounting firm. But the mystery of Trump’s finances is likely to persist. The court sent the the case back to a district court for more work. And the information is part of a grand jury investigation. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the documents would not become public unless they were used in a criminal case. That suggests that there will be no startling revelations before the November election.
In the second case, the Supreme Court returned the case to lower courts, saying they had not taken “adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information.” The high court called for the lower courts to take a “balanced approach” that considers “both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the unique position of the President.” There is no clear prospect for when the case might ultimately be resolved. The outcome was at least a short-term victory for Trump.
Jeremiah Manion of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Material from Globe wire services was used in this report.
Martin Finucane can be reached at martin.finucane@globe.com.