Amy Howe

Apr 27 2020

Justices ask for more briefing in Trump tax-returns cases

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not act on two cases that have been repeatedly relisted in recent weeks, a death-penalty case from Texas and the federal government’s challenge to one of California’s “sanctuary state” laws, which prohibit state and local law-enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration officials. The most noteworthy order came instead in a set of cases scheduled for argument in the justices’ upcoming argument session and could potentially derail congressional efforts to obtain President Donald Trump’s financial records.

The justices have scheduled oral argument for May 12 in a trio of cases involving efforts by the U.S. House of Representatives and a Manhattan district attorney to obtain Trump’s financial records from his long-time accountant and his lenders. In the two cases involving Congress, which are consolidated for one hour of argument, the question is whether the committees can subpoena Trump’s records, while in the New York case the question is whether a state grand-jury subpoena can be enforced while the president is in office. Today the justices asked the parties to the congressional-subpoena cases and the federal government, which filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Trump, to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the political-question doctrine applies to the cases – that is, whether courts should stay out of the fight over the subpoenas because it is fundamentally a political dispute between the branches of government. If the justices were to conclude that the doctrine applies, they could dismiss the cases without ruling on the merits of the dispute – which might be a particularly appealing outcome for some justices in the lead-up to the presidential election. Such a decision could have mixed results for Trump: Without a ruling in his favor, he might not be able to block the accountant or lenders from turning over the records, but on the other hand Congress would not be able to enforce a subpoena if the companies holding the records opted not to comply.

The justices will meet again for their next conference on Friday, May 1. We expect orders from that conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies