Justices split over Trump records
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court posed tough questions to both sides Tuesday in a landmark separation-of-powers dispute between President Donald Trump and House Democrats over access to Trump’s personal and corporate financial records.
Even conservative justices challenged the president’s private lawyer and the Justice Department about House committees’ authority to subpoena Trump’s accountant and bankers for information that could lead to future legislation.
“Why should we not defer to the House’s view of its own legislative purposes?” asked Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump nominee.
But even liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the subpoenas go too far in seeking private data involving not only the president but also members of his family.
“At some point, there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said. “At some point, it debilitates the president.”
The dramatic oral arguments, conducted by telephone amid the coronavirus pandemic and broadcast live, could result in landmark rulings on a president’s immunity from investigation while in office and Congress’ oversight powers, right in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign.
The legal battles pit Trump against three House committees, controlled by Democrats, that have issued subpoenas for eight years of financial documents. A separate fight involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s subpoena for similar documents as well as the tax returns that Trump, unlike recent predecessors, has not released.
Lawmakers claim the records will help determine the need for future legislation in areas such as campaign finance law, bank loan practices, and efforts to prevent foreign influence in elections. That view won support from Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“One must investigate before legislation,” Ginsburg said. “The purpose of investigation is to frame legislation.”
Trump’s lawyer, Patrick Strawbridge, accused lawmakers of setting a “dragnet” to see if the president is guilty of tax fraud or money laundering.
“These subpoenas are overreaching. They are an obvious distraction,” Strawbridge said. Unless the Supreme Court steps in, he warned, “they’re going to multiply.”
Three liberal justices – Ginsburg and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – appeared to take the House’s side, while Thomas and Associate Justice Samuel Alito leaned toward the president. That left Chief Justice John Roberts, Gorsuch, Breyer and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh closer to the middle.
Roberts summed up the dispute over the breadth of the House subpoenas by noting that Congress has a right to seek personal records. But at some point, he said, it can lead to harassment.
“How can we both protect the House’s interest in obtaining the information it needs to legislate but also protect the presidency?” Kavanaugh asked House general counsel Douglas Letter.