- Editor’s note: The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled no person is above the law, not even Trump! This decision involved the alleged hush-money payments to 2 women ahead of the 2016 election. However, in the case of the Congressional House Democrats’ request for his tax documents, SCOTUS sent that back to lower court for a final ruling, so Trump can continue to fight there.
- Note: this was not a split decision, rather a 7-2 ruling against Trump!
- Sorry Mr. President, however your two SCOTUS appointees (Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) voted for the rule of law, which was NOT in you favor!
- Read the court’s opinion here
“Supreme Court says Manhattan district attorney can get Trump tax records”
- The Supreme Court on Thursday voted 7-2 against President Donald Trump in a case over whether he could shield his tax records from the Manhattan district attorney.
- Chief Justice John Roberts authored the court’s opinion, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to explain their votes with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence.’ Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States,” Roberts wrote.
“The decision is the first time that the nation’s highest court has directly ruled on a matter involving Trump’s personal dealings. Trump has been more secretive with his finances than any president in decades, refusing to release his tax records to the public even as he mounts a bid for reelection.”
“The New York case stemmed from an investigation being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. Vance issued a subpoena to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, for a wide variety of Trump’s personal and business records, including tax returns, dating back to 2011.
“Vance’s office is investigating the hush money payments that Trump allegedly facilitated to two women ahead of the 2016 election, though the purpose for his subpoenas is relatively opaque.
“The women have claimed to have had sexual relationships with the president that he has denied,” by Tucker Higgins, CNBC. Read more
Trump’s tax returns, financials can be subpoenaed by investigators, Supreme Court rules
“In the ruling on the New York case, Chief Justice John Roberts writes, “Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.”
“We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,” the court decided in the 7-2 ruling,” by Charles Duncan, The Olympian. Read more