The Supreme Court said that memoranda of evocation to us regarding President Trump’s financial documents would still be withheld, which brought the controversial case back to the lower court for further review.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion 7-2. Judges Thomas and Alito gave dissenting opinions. Two presidential candidates voted by majority.
On the issue: The case put the president’s personal attorney against the Democrats in the House of Representatives who say they need records from Trump’s long-standing accounting firm and two banks. The House of Representatives argued that it was seeking records from Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank, and Capital One for the purpose of investigating whether Congress should amend conflicts of interest and financial disclosure laws, as well as laws regulating banks.
Lawyers for the House of Representatives stressed that the summons are addressed to third parties and not the president, and that the documents do not relate to his official duties. Trump has argued that there is no valid legislative purpose for the documents, and instead the House engages in a fishing trip to find out if he has broken the law.
Key moments from oral arguments: in a Early MayTrump’s lawyers argued that the subpoenas in the House of Representatives were “completely unprecedented.”
When a lawyer from the House of Representatives argued to support subpoenas issued by three committees, many conservative judges focused on whether the efforts of the Democrat-led home amounted to Trump’s harassment.
For his part, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the lawyer about the limits of the powers of Congress and suggested that the House of Representatives take into account the fact that summonses relate, not to the ordinary litigant, but to the president.
Meanwhile, liberal judges pounced on Trump’s lawyer, indicating that the court had long endorsed congressional powers to investigate.
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg He noted that each last president voluntarily surrendered his tax returns. It cited previous investigations into Watergate, Whitewater and Paula Jones.
“How do you distinguish all these cases?” She asked, adding that before Congress can legislate, it must be investigated.