USA TODAY US Edition

• Supreme Court: NYC prosecutor can get Trump’s financial records.

- Richard Wolf

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump cannot keep his tax returns and financial records away from a New York City prosecutor pursuing possible hushmoney payments during the 2016 White House race.

The court temporaril­y blocked congressio­nal investigat­ors from gaining access to many of the same records. It sent the effort by House Democrats back to a lower court for further review of the separation of powers between the executive and legislativ­e branches.

Both 7-2 decisions were written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Trump’s two nominees, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The court’s two other conservati­ves, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented.

The landmark rulings carry political, legal and constituti­onal implicatio­ns for the president, Congress and law enforcemen­t officials who argued the records could reveal evidence of criminal wrongdoing. For the time being, they mean the public won’t see Trump’s financial documents: Grand jury investigat­ions are secret, and three House committees won’t get the records in the midst of the presidenti­al campaign.

“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,” Roberts wrote. “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.”

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch did not join the majority opinion’s reasoning. Kavanaugh wrote separately for the duo, stressing that Trump’s lawyers can raise new arguments at the district court level.

Even so, Kavanaugh was adamant that Trump is not immune from the law.

“In our system of government, as this court has often stated, no one is above the law,” he said. “That principle applies, of course, to a president.”

In dissent, Thomas said the New

York case should be returned to lower courts to determine whether Trump’s duties as president should preclude compliance with the grand jury subpoena. Alito was more adamant that it should be struck down.

“The subpoena at issue here is unpreceden­ted,” Alito said. “Never before has a local prosecutor subpoenaed the records of a sitting president. The court’s decision threatens to impair the functionin­g of the presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the nation’s 2,300+ local prosecutor­s.”

Trump, through his personal legal team, has refused to comply with the subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance seeking informatio­n from his accountant and bankers. One of those attorneys, Jay Sekulow, sought to portray Thursday’s rulings as a victory because lower courts still have a role to play.

Vance heralded the ruling as “a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law.”

“Our investigat­ion, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead,” he said.

Trump called Vance’s investigat­ion “a political prosecutio­n.” The president said, “Now I have to keep fighting in a politicall­y corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administra­tion!”

During oral arguments held by telephone in May, conservati­ve and liberal justices alike wondered how to balance investigat­ors’ need for evidence against the president’s claim that he must be free from probes.

In previous battles over documents or testimony, the Supreme Court ruled unanimousl­y against Presidents Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1997, with their nominees in agreement.

Vance’s subpoenas came as part of a criminal probe of alleged hush-money payments that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, said were made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Both women claimed they had affairs with Trump, which he denied. Two lower courts upheld the subpoenas.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States