Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Donald Trump’s appeals in three separate cases to prevent his financial records, including tax returns, being handed over to Democratic-led House of Representatives committees and a New York prosecutor.
The Republican president is trying to block subpoenas for bank records, tax returns or other materials demanded by various Democratic-led House of Representatives committees investigating corruption or foreign meddling in the US elections process. The House probes are not part of the Democratic-led impeachment proceedings against Mr Trump over his dealings with Ukraine.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is seeking Trump’s tax returns in a criminal investigation of the president, the Trump Organization and his family real estate business.
The court will hold oral arguments in March, with rulings due by the end of June.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the president’s three pending cases. These cases raise significant constitutional issues,” said Jay Sekulow, one of Mr Trump’s lawyers.
The cases are a test for how the justices view Mr Trump’s arguments that the subpoenas are a threat to the presidency, on the one hand, and the need for lawmakers or prosecutors for information to pursue legislation or criminal investigations on the other.
The court has a 5-4 conservative majority including two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
One of the cases is Mr Trump’s appeal of a lower court ruling allowing a New York grand jury to subpoena his accounting firm Mazars LLP for his records.
Mr Trump’s attorneys said prosecutors could be encouraged to investigate a president to advance their careers or score political points if that subpoena is enforced.
Another case concerns a lower court decision in Washington that endorsed subpoenas issued by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee to Mazars.
Mr Trump’s lawyers say there was no legislative purpose for the subpoenas and that the aim was merely to dig for dirt on the president.
In the third case, the justices will review a lower court ruling allowing the enforcement of separate House committee subpoenas targeting Trump-related financial records from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp .
The court on Friday extended its hold on the lower court ruling, which it had temporarily blocked last week.
The lower court rulings in the congressional cases, if left intact, would bring House Democrats closer to getting some of the details about Mr Trump’s business interests.
That outcome would also amount to a major blow for the president, who, unlike past presidents, has refused to publicly disclose his tax returns.
Legal experts say the justices often hear cases when the president asks them to, but that does not mean Mr Trump will ultimately prevail.
Reuters
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments