The Supreme Court just issued two rulings on Democrats’ quest to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns. The first, Trump v. Vance, rejects Trump’s argument that the Manhattan district attorney cannot issue a state criminal subpoena against a sitting president. If the subpoena otherwise holds up, Trump will have to cooperate with it.
The second ruling, Trump v. Mazars, addresses House Democrats’ subpoenas. The justices imposed limits on what Congress could request with an ostensible legislative purpose and ordered the lower courts to reconsider the case, taking into account the separation of powers.
In both cases, the court is trying to strike a balance between executive immunity and accountability. The president does not have absolute immunity, and he, just like any other citizen, is subject to judicial proceedings. But, such proceedings, whether judicial or legislative, must be necessary and limited in scope. Thus, the New York case against the president was allowed to go forward, but the House’s was not, at least for now.
Justice Clarence Thomas was one of the two dissenters from the opinion on the New York case. He acknowledged that the president does not have absolute immunity but that he is nonetheless “entitled to relief against [the subpoena’s] enforcement” if it interferes with his official duties. Thomas agrees with the president that the nature of his duties requires some sort of “injunctive and declaratory relief.” As such, it might be fair to argue that Trump must comply with New York’s subpoena, but only after he has left office.
Still, both cases depend on one question: Are the investigations into the president legitimate? In New York’s case, there is ample evidence supporting Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s investigation into whether Trump used his business dealings to pay hush money to cover up an affair. The accusation might not be true, but the investigation into it cannot just be dismissed as if it weren’t an issue.
The House’s investigation into whether the president colluded with Russia is a different story. The three House committees that requested Trump’s financial information as part of that investigation were too broad and vague with their requests, with very little evidence to back up any of their claims. The court said as much on Thursday when it said that subpoenas must serve a legislative purpose, and that purpose must be supported by “detailed and substantial” reasoning.
The House offered neither reasoning nor evidence but ran with the Russian collusion hoax anyways, with no thought to its legislative responsibilities or constitutional obstacles. This approach “would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the president’s personal records,” the court’s ruling states. “A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense.”
Trump might not see these rulings as a win for his administration, but they are a win for the presidency. The executive branch is not immune from checks and balances, but it is also not a toy to be tossed around by members of the opposite political party, who might find it fun to undermine a presidency by ruining a president in his personal capacity. The Supreme Court affirmed as much in both of these cases.
