'Trump won but U.S. presidency lost' in Supreme Court ruling on financial records -analyst

Record ID: 1561536

  • Title: 'Trump won but U.S. presidency lost' in Supreme Court ruling on financial records -analyst
  • Date: 9th July 2020
  • Summary: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES (JULY 9, 2020) (REUTERS VIA ZOOM) (SOUNDBITE) (English) RICHARD LEMPERT, ERIC STEIN DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF LAW AND SOCIOLOGY, EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, SAYING: "They both may be decided by summarizing by saying in a way 'the presidency lost but Trump won'." (WHITE FLASH) (SOUNDBITE) (English) LEGAL EXPERT AND LAW PROFESSOR RICHARD LEMPERT, SAYING: "The Supreme Court acquitted itself well. It ruled that presidential papers may under certain conditions be subpoenaed. But each of its rulings allows for further litigation and pretty much ensures we won't learn anything about what is in the papers until after the election, if we ever do." (WHITE FLASH) (SOUNDBITE) (English) LEGAL EXPERT AND LAW PROFESSOR RICHARD LEMPERT, SAYING: "In the Vance case, which is the federal grand jury subpoena for his (Trump's) papers (he means the New York grand jury), the issues about whether or not the federal grand jury could subpoena the president were decided entirely in favor of - not the federal grand jury, the New York grand jury - was decided entirely in favor of New York. There is no immunity. Nor is there any special standard that the president can demand simply because a grand jury is subpoenaing his papers rather than those of an ordinary citizen. So in that sense, the court decided there are no special privileges in the president. On the other hand, the court also said that there may be specific objections on constitutional or other grounds, like harassment, that can be made to individual subpoenas. And they sent the case back so that the president and his attorneys could make arguments pertaining to those issues." (WHITE FLASH) (SOUNDBITE) (English) LEGAL EXPERT AND LAW PROFESSOR RICHARD LEMPERT, SAYING: "It actually says that the president, while the grand jury has the right to insist on the release of these records as a general matter, all the court decided was that there was no immunity because of the president and there was no heightened standard. But in in the general sense. But the court also said the president could object to specific subpoenas, to specific documents. So what I expect will happen is the case will be remanded. There'll be a detailed list of every subpoenaed document. The lawyers for the president will then have the ability to object to turning over any documents they think are particularly sensitive that might hurt the president. This argument, even if it's not substantial, that is, even if it's a losing argument, will have to be heard by the district court in the first place. If the district court decides that the argument does not hold water and the papers have to be turned over, there will then be an appeal and even potentially an appeal in the Supreme Court. Those things we know can take years." (WHITE FLASH) (SOUNDBITE) (English) LEGAL EXPERT AND LAW PROFESSOR RICHARD LEMPERT, SAYING: "What the court did in this case is they still refused to look behind the legislators motives. But they said that the legislature must make its justifications crystal clear. And while they could not look at the motives of the legislature in the future, they can look at whether the justifications are adequate. So what it really means in the longer run, and even if Trump was reelected and subpoenaing Trump's papers again, is that the House or the Senate, whichever is doing this, would have to take very great care in drafting a subpoena for the president and touch all the bases of the court outline."
  • Embargoed: 23rd July 2020 17:47
  • Keywords: President Donald Trump Richard Lempert U.S. Supreme Court financial records legal expert subpoenas tax returns
  • Location: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES
  • City: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES
  • Country: USA
  • Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions
  • Reuters ID: LVA001CM39IDJ
  • Aspect Ratio: 16:9
  • Story Text: VIDEO AND AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING
    A legal analyst on Thursday (July 9) called two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on President Donald Trump's financial records a win for Trump but a loss for the presidency.
    The court on Thursday firmly rejected Trump's argument for sweeping presidential immunity and ruled that a New York prosecutor can obtain his financial records but prevented - at least for now - Democratic-led House of Representatives committees from getting similar documents.
    "The Supreme Court acquitted itself well," Michigan Law School Professor Emeritus Richard Lempert, who has written extensively on the cases for Washington think tank The Brookings Institute, told Reuters on Thursday.
    "It ruled that presidential papers may under certain conditions be subpoenaed. But each of its rulings allows for further litigation and pretty much ensures we won't learn anything about what is in the papers until after the (U.S. presidential) election, if we ever do," Lempert said.
    Unlike other recent presidents, Trump has refused to release his tax returns and other documents that could provide details on his wealth and the activities of his family real-estate company, the Trump Organization. The content of these records has remained a persistent mystery even as he seeks re-election.
    Both 7-2 rulings were authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. The court made it clear that a sitting president cannot evade a criminal investigation, ruling that the subpoena issued to Trump's long-term accounting firm, Mazars LLP, for various financial records to be turned over to a grand jury as part of a criminal investigation can be enforced.
    But the court sidestepped a major ruling on whether three House committees could also obtain Trump financial documents under subpoena, giving Trump at least a short-term win.
    "What the court did in this case is they still refused to look behind the legislators motives," said Lempert. "But they said that the legislature must make its justifications crystal clear. And while they could not look at the motives of the legislature in the future, they can look at whether the justifications are adequate."
    The New York case ruling does not mean the documents will be handed over immediately because of expected wrangling in lower courts. A final outcome could be delayed in both cases until after the Nov. 3 election in which Trump is seeking a second term in office.
    "There will then be an appeal and even potentially an appeal in the Supreme Court. Those things we know can take years," said Lempert.
    (Production: Mana Rabiee)
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2020. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register