https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/13/democrats-can-demand-8-years-trump-taxes-court-rul/ Court rules Dems can demand 8 years of Trump’s taxes By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 House Democrats can demand eight years of President Trump’s tax returns, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in a decision that sets up a fierce legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a terse, one-page decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld an earlier ruling by the same court, denying Mr. Trump’s request for a rehearing by the entire panel. The decision Wednesday was issued by the court en banc, meaning all of the judges weighed in. It affirmed last month’s 2-1 decision that rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to block the committee from subpoenaing eight years worth of financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA. In the decision Wednesday, the 11-judge court split 8-3 with the two of the dissenting judges authoring differing opinions. Among those who disagreed, two — Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory G. Katsas — are Trump appointees. Judge Rao wrote in her dissent that if the House wants to investigate the president they should use its constitutional impeachment powers rather than invoking its oversight responsibilities. “By upholding this subpoena, the panel opinion has shifted the balance of power between Congress and the president and allowed a congressional committee to circumvent the careful process of impeachment,” she wrote. Judge Kastas, meanwhile, warned the majority’s decision is a “threat to presidential autonomy and independence.” He added the decision would create “open season on the president’s personal records.” Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president, seized upon split decision, saying it gave the president an opening for the Supreme Court to decide the case. “In light of the well-reasoned dissents, we will be seeking review at the Supreme Court,” he said in a statement. Despite the panel’s decision, Mr. Trump will not be immediately required to immediately turn over his taxes to Congress. The court said an adverse ruling against the president would not take effect for seven days so his attorneys can petition the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump’s attorneys could file a petition with the Supreme Court as soon as Thursday. In April, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Mazars for financial statements related to the Trump Organization, the Trump Corporation, and Trump International Hotel, which was built on the Old Post Office building in Washington. The subpoena flowed from testimony by Mr. Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, who told lawmakers his ex-boss inflated his wealth when he sought bank loans. Lawmakers say the tax returns are necessary to investigate potential financial fraud by the president. In the October ruling, the Court of Appeals said the congressional subpoena was part of a “legitimate legislative investigation.” “Contrary to the president’s arguments, the committee posses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” Judge David Tatel, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote in the majority opinion. Mr. Trump is fighting to keep his tax returns private on a number of fronts. Earlier this month, he lost another legal fight when The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Mazars must turn over his returns to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. The president’s legal team has also vowed to appeal that decision.
I doubt the Supreme court will hear the case for the same reason the Fed District judge in essence said, " take this to the NY State Supreme Court in you don't like my ruling," and the Federal Appeals Court has concurred. Trumps lawyers tried to introduce jurisdictional complexity by making a ridiculous claim that the President was immune from investigation in order to try and make this a Federal case and side track it into the Federal Court system. I think the intention ridiculously transparent, and I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case at all. The Court has always been reluctant to intercede in matters where the State has jurisdiction. In this case, it was a NY State Grand Jury that issued the subpoena for State tax returns. This could easily be resolved by mid January, and sent back. Trump's attorneys are grasping at straws. Anything to delay! I would never put money on this however, because the current Court make-up includes at least one Judge hand picked by Trump because that judge gave indications in his prior writings that evidenced he believed in the screwball Unitary Executive Theory. A strange theory which has never been adjudicated and for which no support exists in the U.S. Constitution. That judge did this while working as an attorney in the White house during the Cheney-Bush administration. His opinions were in a desperate and ill advised effort to justify his bosses' approval of torture of Federal Detainees, in violation of international law to which the U.S. is a party. The Unitary executive Theory is akin to belief that the President is not really a President but is actually an absolute Monarch so long as he is in office.
This is not accurate. It would be better to say that the Unitary Executive has almost absolute authority over the executive branch, and thus the cabinet agencies, so long as he is in office. This in turn implies that the President would effectively be immune from having to answer to federal subpoenas or indictments, and might successfully ignore even non-federal court orders, as they would be impossible to enforce except via impeachment and conviction.
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Stop The Release Of His Tax Returns The president’s refusal to release those financial documents has dogged him for years. President Donald Trump has filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to stop a subpoena seeking the release of his tax returns, several outlets reported Thursday. The request his lawyers filed is a last-ditch effort to reverse a lower court ruling directing his accountants to give New York prosecutors eight years of his tax returns, which he has long refused to make public, despite precedent set by every other modern president. The move comes weeks after a federal appeals court shut down Trump’s claims that presidents are immune from criminal investigation and ruled that his accounting firm, Mazars, must comply with the subpoena from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. Trump is asking the court to decide the case by late June, The Associated Press reported, in compliance with a deal he made with Vance, who agreed not to enforce the subpoena if Trump immediately asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this term. Pressure on Trump to release his tax returns, which would shed important light on any conflicts of interest he may have, is at a high this week. On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled in a separate case that Congress has the right to access his tax returns. Given Wednesday’s development, The Washington Post reported, chances are high the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case. However, it cannot make that decision for another month. If the court declines, the accounting firm will have to hand over the documents to Vance, who is investigating whether Trump made alleged hush money payments to two women prior to the 2016 election who said they had sexual relationships with him ― something the president has vehemently denied.
from: "I'll release them after the audit" 4 yrs ago to: "please don't make me show them, highest court in the land"
because of course they would: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ay-in-house-fight-for-trump-financial-records Chief justice orders delay in House fight for Trump financial records WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts is ordering an indefinite delay in the House of Representatives’ demand for President Donald Trump’s financial records to give the Supreme Court time to figure out how to handle the high-stakes dispute. Roberts’ order Monday contains no hint about what the court ultimately will do. The court’s hold could last a matter of days or weeks, if the court is willing to let an appeals court ruling in favor of the House remain in place without granting full review of the case. But the delay could extend for months if the justices decide they need to hear arguments and issue a written opinion. Earlier Monday, the House said it would agree to a brief halt for the orderly filing of legal briefs, while opposing any lengthy delay. Those written arguments will give the justices a basis to decide whether they will jump into the tussle between Congress and the president. Last week, Trump made an emergency appeal to ask the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a subpoena issued by a House committee to Trump’s accountants. The House has until Thursday to respond, Roberts said. LISTEN: Appeals court hears arguments in Trump tax return case The high court has a separate pending request from Trump to block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor for Trump’s tax returns. The justices next meet in private on Friday and could discuss what to do with the House subpoena. Without some intervention by the high court, a ruling by the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., in favor of the House was set to take effect Wednesday. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform would have been able to try to enforce the subpoena to the Mazars USA accounting firm.
That's a separate case involving Congress. They haven't decided whether to hear either case yet. But I'm confused by this report which says "indefinite" delay. That indefinite delay may be because of the State case in which I heard that Trump had been given only until Nov. 21st to respond with their reason why they should not comply. I'll look into this to see if can sort it out. I think it is more likely that if they decide to hear either case, it would be the Federal case rather than the NY State case. The make-up of the present Court would suggest they might hear these cases, but I think even if they do it is by no means a slam dunk for Trump. I find it difficult to believe the Court would want to interject itself into the NY State case; yet Trump was already successful in getting that case into a Federal District Court, but the claims made to accomplish that were outrageous, such as total immunity. And of course the District Court said, in effect, don't be ridiculous.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...cks-subpoena-trump-financial-records-n1091146 Supreme Court blocks subpoena for Trump financial records The ruling blocks a House subpoena directing Trump's accounting firm to turn over financial documents, giving the president a temporary legal victory. The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday blocked a House subpoena directing President Donald Trump's accounting firm to turn over several years' worth of financial documents, giving the president at least a temporary legal victory. In a brief order, the court said the subpoena would remain on hold until the president's lawyers file their appeal and the court acts on the case. The court gave his lawyers until Dec. 5 to file their appeal, a sign the justices intend to move quickly. But if the court agrees to hear the appeal, the stay would remain in effect for several more months. The Democratic majority on the House Oversight Committee issued the subpoena in April, ordering the accounting firm Mazars USA to turn over Trump-related financial documents covering 2011 through 2018. The committee said it acted after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified that "Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes." After lower courts rejected attempts to block the subpoena, President Trump's lawyers urged the Supreme Court to keep it on hold while they prepare to appeal those rulings. Chief Justice John Roberts imposed a brief hold to give lawyers both sides to weigh in. Monday's order extended that stay. Mr. Trump's private lawyers contended that the House has no authority to subpoena records unless it seeks information for the purpose of writing laws. In this case, they said, the House is improperly acting as an investigative body in an action that implicates the president. While they cast the dispute as one raising profound constitutional questions involving the separation of powers, the House said it is not seeking anything covered by official privilege or, in fact, anything directly from the president at all. "There is no need for this court to make definitive pronouncements on the scope of Congress's power in a case in which its ruling will be so limited in application and consequence." The House lawyers urged the court to lift the stay and let the subpoena take effect. But if the court is considering taking up the president's appeal, they urged the justices to impose an unusually fast timetable, with all legal briefs to be due by Dec. 11. If that happened, the hold on the subpoena would remain in place until the court decided whether to hear and decide the case.