The U.S. Supreme court on Thursday, July 9, ruled that the President of the United States Donald trump is not immune from a subpoena from Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance in connection with its financial statements and tax returns. The court also refused to accept the final decision about whether congressional committees have access to financial documents trump. The Supreme court sent both questions in the lower courts. This writes Fox News.
The court’s decision began under the leadership of chief justice John Roberts.
Vance asked to provide financial records to trump as part of a criminal investigation of possible misconduct by the President and his organizations. Several committees of the house of representatives also demanded the submission of documents. Both decisions were 7-2.
“The President is not absolutely immune from criminal subpoenas, wrote John Roberts in his opinion in the court case in new York. The court limited its decision and the arguments which he had, so, does trump “absolute immunity” and public prosecutors must demonstrate a “greater need” to get documents within the framework of investigations against the President.
Roberts wrote that the President “may put forward additional arguments, depending on circumstances” in the lower courts, trying to keep Vance from receipt of the documents.
Roberts is also the author of the opinion on the Affairs of the house of representatives, which had been consolidated. In one of them the Committee for supervision of buildings has subpoenaed the accounting firm Mazars USA for access to a variety of financial documents trump from 2011 to 2018, including personal records and the records of various subsidiaries and organizations. One of them included the long-sought-after tax return of the President.
In the second case, the committees of the house of representatives on financial services and the intelligence required to provide documents from Deutsche Bank and the financial services Committee also requested documents from Capital One. Although both banks have different financial documentation related to trump and his business, none of them has the tax returns of the President.
“Without restrictions on its powers of subpoena, the Congress could “exercise power and control” over the Executive branch,” wrote Roberts.
But Roberts also left open the possibility that the Democrats of the house of representatives after further proceedings in the lower courts will be able to get the Declaration of the President.
“When Congress requests information reasonably necessary, it is surely incumbent upon all citizens to cooperate,” he wrote. But, according to him, the agenda of the Congress President “imply a special concern with respect to the separation of powers. The courts that have previously considered these claims did not take into account this problem.”
Decree in the future represent a partial victory for President — he will not need to submit the Declaration immediately before the presidential elections. But none of the solutions does not exclude the possibility that the President ultimately will have to provide them.
“We are pleased that the decisions taken today, the Supreme court temporarily blocked by the Congress and the Prosecutor’s office in new York from receiving tax statements of the President, the attorney said trump J. Sekulow. — We will now proceed to the consideration of additional constitutional and legal matters in subordinate courts”.
Vance, meanwhile, also declared victory.
“This is a huge victory for the justice system of our country and its fundamental principle that no one — not even the President can not be above the law, he said. Our investigation, which was pending for almost a year, will resume, as always, guided by the solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they lead.”
Democrats also said they were pleased with the decision in their case.
“The court confirmed the authority of Congress to exercise oversight on behalf of the American people, — said the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi promised that the House of representatives “will continue to insist on the case in the lower courts”.
Trump himself has clearly expressed its dissatisfaction with the decisions of a few tweets.
“The Supreme court sends the case back to a lower court. This is political persecution. I won the “witch-Hunt Mueller” and others, and now I have to continue to fight in a politically corrupt new York city,” wrote trump.
Vance, in the case of new York, in its brief argued that “he writes the order of search returns, since 2011 to the present, in respect of transactions that are not associated with any official actions of the President, and that was mainly before the applicant has accepted the post of head of the White House.”
He also noted that among the potential criminal matters in respect of which the President is under investigation, the alleged “bribes”, which he gave to the women with whom he had Affairs, which would amount to a breach of financing the presidential campaign.
Personal lawyers trump brought in a criminal case the broad argument about the level of immunity enjoyed by a President while in office.
“In accordance with article II, paragraph of the rule and the overall structure of our Constitution, the President of the United States may not be “subjected to a criminal process,” while he is at his post,” said the lawyers.
Trump’s lawyers also argued that allowing prosecutors — especially local prosecutors to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against the presidential steps, in fact, gives them the opportunity to force the chief Executive to carry out its own policy preference; and that the threat of criminal prosecution related to subpoenas, may distract the President from his duties.
Justice Clarence Thomas in both cases opposed the adoption of such decisions by the Supreme court. With regard to the agenda in the House of representatives, he argued that the Congress could get only those personal documents that it had requested from the President in the context of the investigations on impeachment, not the standard tax return.
“I would say that Congress has no authority to issue a legislative subpoena for private informal documents — they belong to the President or not,” he said.
Judge Samuel Alito also disagreed with the court’s decision, but showed a softer approach than Thomas. Stating that he believes that “these subpoenas are not categorically banned,” the House of representatives adequately illustrated their legislative requirements subpoenas, he said.
“Legislative subpoenas for personal documents of the President are inherently suspect” — he said, arguing that such documents are “rarely have any special value in the proceedings”.
All seven other judges, including appointees trump Brett Cavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, joined the majority opinion Roberts at the suit of the house of representatives. As regards the summons for jury duty in new York, the four liberal judges joined Roberts, while Cavanaugh and Gorsha was against it.