SCOTUS re: Trump taxes
Page 1 of 1 [ 3 posts ]
09 Jul 2020, 9:16 am
SCOTUS have just released an opinion and it seems that NY can subpoena the tax records (unless I misunderstood something)...
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Edit: It seems it is remanded to the NY court, where he can still challenge on different arguements, should he wish.
Edit 2: Congresional access:
Quote:
When Congress seeks information “needed for intelligent legislative action,” it “unquestionably” remains “the duty of all citizens to cooperate.” Watkins, 354 U. S., at 187 (em-phasis added). Congressional subpoenas for informationfrom the President, however, implicate special concerns re-garding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns. The judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit and the Second Circuit are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Looks like this is headed back to lower courts to be re-considered based on details in the judgement
Both were 7:2, and cynically appear to be a way out of "impacting" on this years election either way.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
09 Jul 2020, 9:43 am
Quote:
President Donald Trump must release his tax returns and other financial records to the Manhattan district attorney, the Supreme Court has ordered.
In a 7-2 vote, the court sided with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance who requested eight years' worth of Trump's business and personal tax records to help investigate whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president.
However, in a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that it won't allow Congress to get tax and financial records.
Trump has been refusing to release his tax returns for years, unlike the last six presidents. Both court cases have been fought tooth and nail by the president, who argued the cases lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were driven by partisan intent.
In Trump v. Mazars, a case consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees argued it was within their constitutional authority to issue Trump a subpoena to obtain several years worth of personal financial documents and records from his accounting firm Mazars.
The committees, including the Committee on Oversight and Reform that issued the subpoena in mid-2019 to Mazars, argued the documents were part of an investigation into government ethics and conflicts of interest in the executive branch. Part of the investigation, the committee argued, included “the accuracy of statements made by the President on various financial discloses.”
In the Deutsche Bank case, the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued subpoenas to the bank and Capital One for records into Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization as part of an ongoing investigation into any links or coordination between the Russian government, or any other foreign actors, that may have influenced the 2016 U.S. elections. The investigations by the two committees also focused on Russian money laundering.
The subpoenas came after Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified that the president had previously exaggerated his wealth in order to seek loans from several banks, including Deutsche. Cohen also provided financial documents showing Trump’s personal assets between 2011 and 2013 to prove his allegations during a Feb. 2019 testimony to the House Oversight Committee.
Trump’s team swiftly fought back against the subpoenas, asking a federal judge in New York to block the banks from complying and arguing that the subpoenas open the door to allow Congress to seek legislative powers beyond their job description. But federal judges in New York and Washington D.C.—both at the district and appeals court levels—repeatedly ruled against Trump and agreed with the argument that the subpoenas did not exceed Congress’ power.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in the appeal court ruling in October.
In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up both cases in a combined hearing. In his January brief to the Supreme Court, the president slammed the “unprecedented” subpoenas and said a ruling siding with the House Committees would have implications for presidents seeking to keep their financial records private.
Trump v. Vance is rooted in a New York grand jury investigation into whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president. Vance is seeking eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records and tax returns. The president has denied having affairs with these women, but Vance said the financial records were crucial to see if business records were falsified and if any tax laws were violated.
In a 7-2 vote, the court sided with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance who requested eight years' worth of Trump's business and personal tax records to help investigate whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president.
However, in a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that it won't allow Congress to get tax and financial records.
Trump has been refusing to release his tax returns for years, unlike the last six presidents. Both court cases have been fought tooth and nail by the president, who argued the cases lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were driven by partisan intent.
In Trump v. Mazars, a case consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees argued it was within their constitutional authority to issue Trump a subpoena to obtain several years worth of personal financial documents and records from his accounting firm Mazars.
The committees, including the Committee on Oversight and Reform that issued the subpoena in mid-2019 to Mazars, argued the documents were part of an investigation into government ethics and conflicts of interest in the executive branch. Part of the investigation, the committee argued, included “the accuracy of statements made by the President on various financial discloses.”
In the Deutsche Bank case, the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued subpoenas to the bank and Capital One for records into Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization as part of an ongoing investigation into any links or coordination between the Russian government, or any other foreign actors, that may have influenced the 2016 U.S. elections. The investigations by the two committees also focused on Russian money laundering.
The subpoenas came after Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified that the president had previously exaggerated his wealth in order to seek loans from several banks, including Deutsche. Cohen also provided financial documents showing Trump’s personal assets between 2011 and 2013 to prove his allegations during a Feb. 2019 testimony to the House Oversight Committee.
Trump’s team swiftly fought back against the subpoenas, asking a federal judge in New York to block the banks from complying and arguing that the subpoenas open the door to allow Congress to seek legislative powers beyond their job description. But federal judges in New York and Washington D.C.—both at the district and appeals court levels—repeatedly ruled against Trump and agreed with the argument that the subpoenas did not exceed Congress’ power.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in the appeal court ruling in October.
In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up both cases in a combined hearing. In his January brief to the Supreme Court, the president slammed the “unprecedented” subpoenas and said a ruling siding with the House Committees would have implications for presidents seeking to keep their financial records private.
Trump v. Vance is rooted in a New York grand jury investigation into whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president. Vance is seeking eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records and tax returns. The president has denied having affairs with these women, but Vance said the financial records were crucial to see if business records were falsified and if any tax laws were violated.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
09 Jul 2020, 9:56 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Daily Beast
Quote:
President Donald Trump must release his tax returns and other financial records to the Manhattan district attorney, the Supreme Court has ordered.
In a 7-2 vote, the court sided with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance who requested eight years' worth of Trump's business and personal tax records to help investigate whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president.
However, in a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that it won't allow Congress to get tax and financial records.
Trump has been refusing to release his tax returns for years, unlike the last six presidents. Both court cases have been fought tooth and nail by the president, who argued the cases lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were driven by partisan intent.
In Trump v. Mazars, a case consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees argued it was within their constitutional authority to issue Trump a subpoena to obtain several years worth of personal financial documents and records from his accounting firm Mazars.
The committees, including the Committee on Oversight and Reform that issued the subpoena in mid-2019 to Mazars, argued the documents were part of an investigation into government ethics and conflicts of interest in the executive branch. Part of the investigation, the committee argued, included “the accuracy of statements made by the President on various financial discloses.”
In the Deutsche Bank case, the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued subpoenas to the bank and Capital One for records into Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization as part of an ongoing investigation into any links or coordination between the Russian government, or any other foreign actors, that may have influenced the 2016 U.S. elections. The investigations by the two committees also focused on Russian money laundering.
The subpoenas came after Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified that the president had previously exaggerated his wealth in order to seek loans from several banks, including Deutsche. Cohen also provided financial documents showing Trump’s personal assets between 2011 and 2013 to prove his allegations during a Feb. 2019 testimony to the House Oversight Committee.
Trump’s team swiftly fought back against the subpoenas, asking a federal judge in New York to block the banks from complying and arguing that the subpoenas open the door to allow Congress to seek legislative powers beyond their job description. But federal judges in New York and Washington D.C.—both at the district and appeals court levels—repeatedly ruled against Trump and agreed with the argument that the subpoenas did not exceed Congress’ power.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in the appeal court ruling in October.
In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up both cases in a combined hearing. In his January brief to the Supreme Court, the president slammed the “unprecedented” subpoenas and said a ruling siding with the House Committees would have implications for presidents seeking to keep their financial records private.
Trump v. Vance is rooted in a New York grand jury investigation into whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president. Vance is seeking eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records and tax returns. The president has denied having affairs with these women, but Vance said the financial records were crucial to see if business records were falsified and if any tax laws were violated.
In a 7-2 vote, the court sided with Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance who requested eight years' worth of Trump's business and personal tax records to help investigate whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president.
However, in a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that it won't allow Congress to get tax and financial records.
Trump has been refusing to release his tax returns for years, unlike the last six presidents. Both court cases have been fought tooth and nail by the president, who argued the cases lacked legitimate legislative purpose and were driven by partisan intent.
In Trump v. Mazars, a case consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees argued it was within their constitutional authority to issue Trump a subpoena to obtain several years worth of personal financial documents and records from his accounting firm Mazars.
The committees, including the Committee on Oversight and Reform that issued the subpoena in mid-2019 to Mazars, argued the documents were part of an investigation into government ethics and conflicts of interest in the executive branch. Part of the investigation, the committee argued, included “the accuracy of statements made by the President on various financial discloses.”
In the Deutsche Bank case, the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued subpoenas to the bank and Capital One for records into Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization as part of an ongoing investigation into any links or coordination between the Russian government, or any other foreign actors, that may have influenced the 2016 U.S. elections. The investigations by the two committees also focused on Russian money laundering.
The subpoenas came after Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, testified that the president had previously exaggerated his wealth in order to seek loans from several banks, including Deutsche. Cohen also provided financial documents showing Trump’s personal assets between 2011 and 2013 to prove his allegations during a Feb. 2019 testimony to the House Oversight Committee.
Trump’s team swiftly fought back against the subpoenas, asking a federal judge in New York to block the banks from complying and arguing that the subpoenas open the door to allow Congress to seek legislative powers beyond their job description. But federal judges in New York and Washington D.C.—both at the district and appeals court levels—repeatedly ruled against Trump and agreed with the argument that the subpoenas did not exceed Congress’ power.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct—past or present—even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in the appeal court ruling in October.
In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up both cases in a combined hearing. In his January brief to the Supreme Court, the president slammed the “unprecedented” subpoenas and said a ruling siding with the House Committees would have implications for presidents seeking to keep their financial records private.
Trump v. Vance is rooted in a New York grand jury investigation into whether Trump and his company violated state laws in connection with hush-money payments to several women that allegedly had affairs with the president. Vance is seeking eight years’ worth of Trump’s financial records and tax returns. The president has denied having affairs with these women, but Vance said the financial records were crucial to see if business records were falsified and if any tax laws were violated.
As I understand it, having read through the opinions from SCOTUS (and watching a live-stream by a lawyer doing a quick analysis), both issues were remanded to the lower courts where Trump can still challenge the subpoena's on other grounds than those raised in these cases, which means that NY don't automatically get the records...Whether this was designed so that SCOTUS aren't seen to be meddling by ordering them released in an election year, I wouldn't know, but cynically, it does appear that way.
