- The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump cannot block criminal prosecutors from attempting to subpoena him.
- The 7-2 ruling, where Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority, decided that a sitting president does not have “absolute immunity” from criminal investigations.
- The case in question involves a probe into Trump’s alleged hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with him.
- Still, the decision at hand only broadly refers to Trump’s inability to block subpoenas. As the Court noted, he can still issue legal challenges to specific subpoenas, which he will likely do.
SCOTUS Rules on Trump Tax Records
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a substantial blow to President Donald Trump Thursday in a 7-2 decision that now prevents him from blocking subpoenas targeted at him.
The ruling concerns two cases, both with different outcomes and both seeking to obtain Trump’s financial and business records. The first involves a subpoena for a grand jury into a criminal investigation by Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr. The second involves an array of subpoenas filed by three different committees in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thursday’s majority decision, which Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined, states that while Trump cannot avoid being subpoenaed as part of a criminal investigation solely because of his status as president, he can still challenge the specifics of the current subpoenas against him.
The ruling handed down from SCOTUS is also one of the most anticipated and detailed rulings on presidential privilege in decades.
“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,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
“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,” Roberts added.
While the Court sided with Vance and his investigation, it did not make a ruling on the case involving those House subpoenas. Instead, justices said neither side presented a compelling case as to how to balance congressional subpoenas with the separation of powers. Thus, they sent the case back to lower courts for review.
“The House’s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records,” Roberts wrote. “A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense.”
Essentially, SCOTUS did not prohibit Congress from having the power to subpoena a sitting president, but it did say that the specific way in which the House issued its subpoenas in this case could lead to a power vacuum.
SCOTUS began hearing oral arguments for both cases in May. With each, justices expressed concern about the potential for presidents to face harassment from subpoenas; however, they were also skeptical of Trump’s defense that, while president, he has “absolute immunity” from being subpoenaed or from being the subject of any criminal investigation.
Takeaway: A Mixed Bag
While Thursday’s decision can definitely be seen as a loss for Trump, it is not a definitive win for either side. For example, those hoping to personally see Trump’s tax returns will likely also find themselves out of luck.
To be clear, within the context of SCOTUS’ ruling, that information would only be for a single grand jury’s eyes. Since grand juries operate confidentially, documents like that rarely ever leak.
It’s unknown when exactly those documents would have to be handed over to that grand jury, especially because as SCOTUS noted, Trump can still fight their release by raising defences other than “absolute immunity.” Such a move—which is all but certain to happen—will likely tie up those documents in legal limbo until well after the general elections.
Like the case with the House, that then means Vance’s case is also set to return to courts. This time, however, Trump’s lawyers will be unable to argue “absolute immunity” and will have to resort to arguments used for any client.
Because those specific cases can be reargued, even if Trump is still likely to lose against them, he’s been given valuable time to keep their contents a secret until after voters head to the polls.
Trump Jeers, Democrats and Even White House Cheer
Just minutes after SCOTUS’ decision went public, social media erupted into a frenzy. Supreme Court, #TrumpTaxes, #TrumpTaxReturns, SCOTUS, and Kavanaugh were all top trending topics on Twitter Thursday morning.
“PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Trump tweeted shortly after the announcement.
“POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!” he followed up in another tweet he has repeated many times over.
“Courts in the past have given “broad deference,” he added in another tweet. “BUT NOT ME!”
“…the Supreme Court gives a delay ruling that they would never have given for another President. This is about PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.”
However, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany has spun SCOTUS’ decision as a “win” for Trump, particularly because he’s able to re-challenge both cases.
On the other side, Vance called the ruling “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.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement, saying, “No matter how much he wishes it to be true, President Trump is not king.”
In a devastating blow to President Trump and his enablers in the Republican party, the Supreme Court today upheld a fundamental tenet of our democracy that no one is above the law,” Schumer said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also responded to the House case being sent back to the lower courts, saying that Thursday’s ruling “is not good news for President Trump.” Pelosi added that Congress will continue to press its case in lower courts and provide further information to those courts.
Deutsche Bank, one of the banks holding some of Trump’s financial records, said it will abide by the U.S. legal process and the final decision of the courts.
Why Are Trump’s Tax Records Being Sought?
Vance is seeking 10 years of documents as part of an criminal investigation into potential state tax law violations by Trump prior to his presidency.
Notably, that investigation includes looking into hush money paid to Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film star Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, during Trump’s campaign run. Vance is specifically investigating whether that hush money violated New York state law if it were filed as false business records.
The House’s case involves two different subpoenas. Those subpoenas include a sweeping array of Trump’s personal and business records also prior to his time in the White House, including: bank statements, engagement letters, personal checks, loan applications, and tax returns.
The committees have justified these subpoenas by arguing that the information in them is critical to drafting federal ethics and anti-corruption laws involving presidents. In fact, one major concern is whether Trump has business dealings with Russia, which could be a major conflict of interest.
It’s important to note that Trump himself was never personally subpoenaed. Both Vance and the House committees actually sent those subpoenas to Trump’s personal accounting firm, as well as 3 financial institutions used by him and his business.
Nonetheless, Trump filed lawsuits against both sets of subpoenas in an attempt to block those institutions from having to comply. In both cases, Trump lost in every single level of federal court all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Notably, he’s also the only president in modern history to not publicly release his tax returns or divest from major business interests while in office.
See what others are saying: (ABC News) (The LA Times) (Axios)
Jan. 6 Rally Organizers Say They Met With Members of Congress and White House Officials Ahead of Insurrection
Two sources told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of meetings with “multiple members of Congress” and top White House aides to plan the rallies that proceeded the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Rolling Stone Report
Members of Congress and White House Staffers under former President Donald Trump allegedly helped plan the Jan. 6 protests that took place outside the U.S. Capitol ahead of the insurrection, according to two sources who spoke to Rolling Stone.
According to a report the outlet published Sunday, the two people, identified only as “a rally organizer” and “a planner,” have both “begun communicating with congressional investigators.”
The two told Rolling Stone that they participated in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of the protests and said that “multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.”
“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the person identified as a rally organizer said. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”
The two also told Rolling Stone that a number of other Congress members were either personally involved in the conversations or had staffers join, including Representatives Paul Gosar (R-Az.), Lauren Boebert (R-Co.), Mo Brooks (R-Al.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Andy Biggs (R-Az.), and Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.).
The outlet added that it “separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6,” though it did not go into further detail.
A spokesperson for Greene has denied involvement with planning the protests, but so far, no other members have responded to the report.
Previous Allegations Against Congressmembers Named
This is not the first time allegations have surfaced concerning the involvement of some of the aforementioned congress members regarding rallies that took place ahead of the riot.
As Rolling Stone noted, Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all listed as speakers at the “Wild Protest” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, which was arranged by “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.
Additionally, Alexander said during a now-deleted live stream in January that he personally planned the rally with the help of Gosar, Biggs, and Brooks.
Biggs and Brooks previously denied any involvement in planning the event, though Brooks did speak at a pro-Trump protest on Jan. 6.
Gosar, for his part, has remained quiet for months but tagged Alexander in numerous tweets involving Stop the Steal events leading up to Jan. 6, including one post that appears to be taken at a rally at the Capitol hours before the insurrection.
Notably, the organizer and the planner also told Rolling Stone that Gosar “dangled the possibility of a ‘blanket pardon’ in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.”
Alleged White House Involvement
Beyond members of Congress, the outlet reported that the sources “also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.”
Both reportedly described Meadows “as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests.”
The two additionally said Katrina Pierson, who worked for the Trump campaign in both 2016 and 2020, was a key liaison between the organizers of the demonstrations and the White House.
“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer told the outlet. “She was like our primary advocate.”
According to Rolling Stone, the sources have so far only had informal talks with the House committee investigating the insurrection but are expecting to testify publicly. Both reportedly said they would share “new details about the members’ specific roles” in planning the rallies with congressional investigators.
See what others are saying: (Rolling Stone) (Business Insider) (Forbes)
Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena
The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.
Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.
The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.
In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.
Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.
Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee.
That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.
After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.
Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.
Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts
The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.
It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same.
The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively — are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.
Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.
As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.
Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)
Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December
The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.
Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily
The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.
The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.
After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.
The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday.
The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.
“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.
Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.
The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession.
Major Hurdles Remain
While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.
Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain.
Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.
Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.
Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.
Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.
Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.
In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul.
As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported.
It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.