Tag: SCOTUS

Rulings let Trump keep his taxes under wraps for now, but his angry reaction underscores a political risk

Washington Post logoPresident Trump reacted angrily to a pair of Supreme Court rulings about his financial records Thursday, taking to Twitter to call them “not fair to this Presidency or Administration!” and describing himself as the victim of a “political prosecution.”

Hours later, the White House released a statement saying Trump was “gratified” by one of the decisions and had been “protected” in the other.

The disjointed responses underscore what in some ways represented a split decision for the president, marked by political and legal ramifications that hold both risks and advantages ahead of the November election. Continue reading.

Five takeaways from Supreme Court’s rulings on Trump tax returns

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court handed down a split decision Thursday that upheld a New York state prosecutor’s authority to access President Trump’s tax returns but dealt a defeat to congressional Democrats who also sought Trump’s records. 

The overlapping efforts to nab the president’s financial paper trail presented the justices with a gordian knot of intersecting legal conflicts dealing with presidential immunity, Congress’s investigative authority and the power of state prosecutors to gather evidence linked to a sitting president.

While the justices untangled some of the thorniest issues, key questions remain unanswered as the cases proceed back down to lower courts for further resolution. Continue reading.

Supreme Court blocks House Democrats from access to Trump’s financial records for now

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court temporarily blocked congressional investigators Thursday from gaining access to President Donald Trump’s personal financial records.

The 7-2 decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Trump’s two nominees, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It sends the separation of powers dispute back to lower courts for further determination.

“Courts must perform a careful analysis that takes adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the ‘unique position’ of the president,” Roberts wrote. Continue reading.

Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now

Washington Post logoThe Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s bold claims of immunity from local law enforcement and congressional investigators, delivering a nuanced and likely landmark lesson on the separation of powers and limits of presidential authority.

In one of two lopsided 7-to-2 rulings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected Trump’s argument that he did not have to comply with a subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and said Vance had authority to pursue the president’s personal and business financial records.

In the other, the court said the restrictions the president proposed on congressional demands for private, nonprivileged information “risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutors can obtain Trump’s financial records

Axios logoThe Supreme Court on Thursday kept the fight over President Trump’s financial records alive, all but ensuring that those records won’t be made public before the election.

The big picture: The court ruled that presidents are not immune from investigation, denying Trump the sweeping grant of presidential power he had asked for. But the legal wrangling over Trump’s records, specifically, will continue — and they may end up in the hands of Manhattan prosecutors.

Driving the news: In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the court ruled that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance has the legal right to subpoena records from Trump’s financial institutions, while rejecting, at least for now, the House’s effort to subpoena similar records. Continue reading.

Supreme Court sides with religious schools in discrimination suits

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a pair of Los Angeles-area Catholic schools are immune from discrimination suits brought by two former teachers in a decision that expands the scope of First Amendment safeguards for religious employers.

The 7-2 decision broadens the so-called ministerial exception, a First Amendment doctrine that prohibits lawsuits by employees who are considered ministers due to the religious nature of their work.

The former teachers are Agnes Morrissey-Berru, who says she suffered age discrimination, and now-deceased Kristen Biel, whose widower said Biel’s school fired her in violation of disability laws while she battled breast cancer. Continue reading.

Supreme Court hands win to religious schools

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a Montana program that excluded religious schools from a student aid initiative violates religious freedoms protected under the U.S. Constitution.

The 5-4 majority decision, which fell along ideological lines, said that by making state-backed private school scholarships off-limits to parochial schools, the program ran afoul of First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion, which prohibits the government from treating religious and secular groups differently.

“A state need not subsidize private education,” Chief Justice John Robertswrote for the majority. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to new federal death penalty procedure

Washington Post logoThe Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to new federal death penalty protocols, potentially clearing the way for the government to resume executions as soon as next month for the first time since 2003.

The court, without comment, declined to take up the lawsuit filed by four death row inmates. As is customary, it gave no reason. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor indicated they would have accepted the case.

Although this removes a significant barrier to restarting federal executions, it does not mean they will automatically proceed as scheduled. The individual inmates facing execution could file additional challenges, which could affect whether and when these sentences are carried out. Continue reading.

The Supreme Court is about to make 3 big rulings on immigration, abortion, and financial reform

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are often left out of regular partisan sniping, but they’re absolutely crucial to determining policy in America. Even with coronavirus disrupting the usual procedures of the court, with oral arguments moved to the virtual realm for the first time after several cases were postponed, the justices are still poised to rule on some of the biggest issues of the day this spring, including three seminal cases on immigration, women’s rights, and financial reform. Because there’s no schedule for when decisions may come, court-watchers will just have to wait by their computers — but in the meantime, we’ve got a rundown of what to expect.

Trump v. NAACP

Three cases were consolidated and presented during one session of oral arguments that concerned the future of participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects immigrants who arrived in the United States as children from deportation. The three cases are: Trump v. NAACP, McAleenan v. Vidal, and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.

At issue is the announcement President Trump made 2017 stating that his administration would be dissolving the DACA program, which was established in 2012 by the Obama administration to protect young immigrants. The program, established by executive order, allowed these people to work legally and live without fear of deportation for renewable two-year periods. Continue reading.

Supreme Court Rules for Insurers in $12 Billion Obamacare Case

New York Times logoIn an 8-to-1 decision, the court said the government must shield insurers from losses under the Affordable Care Act.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal government must live up to its promise to shield insurance companies from some of the risks they took in participating in the exchanges established by President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 ruling, said the court’s decision vindicated “a principle as old as the nation itself: The government should honor its obligations.”

The health care law had promised the insurers that they would be protected, she wrote, and it did not matter that Congress later failed to appropriate money to cover the insurers’ shortfalls. Continue reading.