Corrupt court...

Trump's effort to block tax subpoenas meets the Supreme Court he shaped

Oral arguments in a series of related cases are set to begin on Tuesday.

By JOSH GERSTEIN, KYLE CHENEY and ZACHARY WARMBRODT

President Donald Trump’s drive to block subpoenas for his personal financial records faces a key test Tuesday as the Supreme Court hears arguments in a set of cases that could radically reshape the powers of Congress and prosecutors to probe a president’s business affairs.

The justices, two of whom were appointed by Trump, will also find themselves for the first time in the sensitive position of wrestling in depth with legal disputes that directly involve Trump and investigations he has castigated as illegitimate and politically motivated.

The oral arguments will be conducted by live teleconference, in line with public health measures the court has taken due to the coronavirus outbreak.

House Democrats have issued multiple subpoenas — one for Trump’s records from his accounting firm Mazars USA, others for records from lenders to Trump’s companies — that have wound through the courts for a year. Though the House has won at every level so far, Trump’s legal team is hopeful that the high court is a more favorable venue to beat back the effort.

At its core, the president’s legal fight with Congress is over how close a link the courts will require between House committees’ investigative efforts aimed at allegations of presidential misconduct and lawmakers' specific plans to pass legislation.

So far, the courts have agreed that a broad interest in government oversight and the possibility of changes to mundane legislation like financial disclosure laws is enough to justify congressional subpoenas — and that history has shown this was the precise intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Trump’s lawyers, though, say that investigating whether a president broke the law in his financial dealings is beyond Congress’ legislative powers and that — outside of an impeachment inquiry — no congressional action to pursue such allegations is legitimate.

That would appear to leave law enforcement as the only other option for reining in a president who is defying the law, but in one of the cases set to be argued before the justices Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys are opposing efforts by a local prosecutor — Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. — to conduct just that sort of investigation.

Last September, Trump sued Vance to try to block grand jury subpoenas seeking eight years of his tax returns as part of an investigation into alleged fraud by the Trump Organization and other matters.

Trump’s attorneys made a sweeping argument that presidents are completely immune from all concrete steps in the criminal justice process —ranging from subpoena to arrest and prosecution — while in office.

The Justice Department also weighed in to back Trump in the suit. It did not fully embrace the Trump legal team’s claim that the president has “absolute immunity,” but warned that allowing state-level prosecutors free rein to pursue the president would cause major constitutional problems.

Vance and the president’s critics have argued that the stance taken by Trump’s lawyers would not only put him beyond the reach of criminal law enforcement while in office, but could also amount to a free pass for any of his associates who might have committed crimes.

The outcome of the cases stemming from the House subpoenas could have an impact on the November election, because if Democratic lawmakers manage to get their hands on Trump’s financial records, they are widely expected to make them public.

The House subpoenas — directed to Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA — don’t explicitly seek the tax returns Trump promised to make public during the 2016 campaign but later withheld. It’s not clear what Mazars will give the House if the congressional subpoenas are upheld.

If the justices uphold the New York subpoenas, Trump’s tax records wouldn’t immediately be made public because they’d be subject to grand jury secrecy. But they could emerge if Vance files criminal charges against Trump or someone else.

A ruling in the cases is likely by the end of June, but they have already been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. Arguments were originally set for March 31, but postponed to Tuesday and moved to a telephone session due to concerns about the virus.

The House cases also represent the culmination of a campaign Democrats have pursued since the outset of Trump’s presidency to unearth his dealings with various lenders, including Deutsche Bank. They had limited powers to do so until winning control of the House in 2018 and gaining subpoena authority.

Once they secured committee gavels last year, House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wasted little time organizing investigations into Trump's relationship with the German lender, which lent Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over the years for property development ventures. The bank is also under scrutiny for alleged ties to Russian money laundering.

In addition, the committees subpoenaed the U.S.-based Capital One for Trump-related financial documents.

As part of the investigation into Trump’s banks, the committees sought records not only on Trump but also his children and various legal entities. Beyond tax returns, House investigators have pursued financial statements, internal bank communications, evidence of Trump ties to foreign individuals and documentation of potential suspicious activity.

Democrats have sought similar records from Mazars. The House Oversight Committee in early 2019, chaired by the late Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland at the time, subpoenaed the firm in response to evidence from Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump artificially inflated and deflated the values of his assets to suit his personal financial benefit.