Trump ordered to hand over his tax returns

President claims minor victory as documents will not be made public before the November election

THE US Supreme Court has ruled a Manhattan prosecutor can get access to Donald Trump’s tax returns, rejecting the US president’s long-held claim to “absolute immunity” on the matter.

However, with the case returning to a lower court and any documents obtained being handed to a secret grand jury, they are unlikely to be seen by voters before the November election.

In a second case on a related matter, the Supreme Court blocked an attempt by congressional committees controlled by the Democrats to obtain Mr Trump’s financial documents.

In that case, the justices ruled the subpoenas seeking a wide array of financial records linked to Mr Trump were too broad in scope and were potentially open to abuse in the future.

The twin decisions from America’s top court represented a mixed result for Mr Trump, who has resisted releasing his tax returns for years, breaking with precedent set by other recent presidents.

The justices rejected the claim by Mr Trump’s lawyers that he should not have to hand over documents to a stateled criminal probe while in the White House – a clear defeat for the president.

Yet, that case returning to the lower courts and the decision to reject the Democrats’ bid means no tax returns are likely to become public before the election – a short-term victory for him.

Mr Trump reacted by tweeting claims of “prosecutorial misconduct” and a “political witch hunt!”

He suggested a narrower definition of executive powers was being applied to him than his predecessors, writing: “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”

The two cases were both broadly about access to financial records linked to Mr Trump but had very different specifics, hence the different decisions.

One case revolved around Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance’s attempt to obtain eight years of financial records linked to Mr Trump and his firms, including tax returns.

Mr Trump’s legal team argued that as sitting president he had “absolute im- munity” to state criminal proceedings and so did not need to hand over the documents. The Supreme Court rejected that, outlining 200 years of history showing presidents agreeing to give documents in past criminal proceedings.

John Roberts, the chief justice, wrote in the majority opinion: “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.”

The Supreme Court backed that position by seven justices to two, with both men appointed to the court by Mr Trump – Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch – going against the president.

The decision cleared the way for eight years of his tax returns to be obtained by the Manhattan prosecutor. But, given this is a criminal probe, the documents would be handed to a grand jury and may never be made public.

The second case involved three House of Representatives committees, controlled by the Democrats, that were seeking different sets of financial documents linked to the president.

The Supreme Court, again by a seven-to-two verdict, blocked the move, arguing that the subpoenas issued were so wide in scope that they could set a precedent that could be open to abuse in the future.

With fewer than 130 days before the election, voters are now unlikely to see Mr Trump’s tax returns through either of these routes before they decide on whether he should have a second term.