As legal glare turns to Trump, his faith
in Supreme Court may be tested
Send a link to a friend
[June 19, 2019]
By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald
Trump's fondness for the U.S. Supreme Court could be tested by a series
of legal disputes targeting him personally – from his taxes and
businesses to his 2016 election campaign – that ultimately may be
decided by the justices.
Trump has viewed the court, whose 5-4 conservative majority includes two
justices he appointed, as friendly territory, unlike certain lower
courts and individual judges he has publicly criticized after ending up
on the wrong side of rulings. The Supreme Court already has given the
Republican president victories on some pivotal policies including
upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority
countries.
But as the focus of some of the major legal challenges shifts from his
policies to Trump himself, there could be disappointments in store for
him, according to some legal experts, in particular if the Supreme Court
stoutly defends the ability of Congress to pursue investigations of the
president.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2019/Jun/19/images/ads/current/cca_laptop-sda021709.png)
The conservative justices "won't feel any loyalty to Trump, but will
instead support strong separation of powers" as delineated in the U.S.
Constitution assigning specific roles to the government's executive,
legislative and judicial branches, said conservative legal scholar J.W.
Verret, an expert in corporate and securities law at George Mason
University in Virginia.
"That means upholding lower court decisions finding proper legislative
purpose in recent inquiries regarding tax and financial fraud
subpoenas," Verret added.
Trump, who is seeking re-election in 2020, and his administration have
defied a series of subpoenas coming from the Democratic-led House of
Representatives. The subpoenas have sought testimony from current and
former administration officials as well as documents covering matters
such as his tax returns, banking records, family business interests and
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the
2016 election and Trump's actions to impede the inquiry.
The president and his lawyers have defiantly challenged the oversight
authority of Congress, a stance that Democrats have framed as an attack
on the separation of powers.
Trump has sued to try to block enforcement of certain subpoenas, losing
thus far in lower courts. And House Democrats, who are divided on
whether to launch the impeachment process set out in the Constitution to
remove a president from office, appear poised to press the matter by
bringing their own court actions to try to enforce their subpoenas.
Other lawsuits, including one brought by congressional Democrats, also
accuse Trump of violating an anti-corruption provision in the
Constitution, called the emoluments clause, by continuing to accept
payments from foreign governments through his businesses including a
downtown Washington hotel.
Some of Trump's losses in lower courts already are on appeal, and
potentially could come before the Supreme Court with decisions issued
during the heat of the election season.
Stuart Gerson, a Republican former Justice Department official and
former acting U.S. attorney general, said the Supreme Court might be
skeptical if the aim of subpoenas by Democratic lawmakers is merely to
"educate the American people and build up a tide for impeachment that
doesn't exist now."
"There's no black and white," Gerson added. "It will be 'win some, lose
some,' and the Supreme Court, I think, given its precedent, will define
a middle ground."
William Consovoy, Trump's lead lawyer on cases involving his business
dealings, did not respond to a request seeking comment. The White House
declined to comment for this story.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/061919pics/news_L13.jpg)
People exit and stand outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Washington, D.C., U.S., June 17, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis
![](../images/ads/current/fitzpatrick_lda_SPONSOR_2017.png)
SUPREME INFATUATION
Trump has professed his faith in the Supreme Court and the
importance of a president's role in making lifetime appointments to
the top U.S. judicial body. Trump has said his promise to name
conservative justices was a "main reason" why he was elected in
2016. His two appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have
deepened the conservative hold on the court.
Aside from the travel ban, Trump's policy victories at the Supreme
Court have included implementation of his ban on most transgender
people in the U.S. military and blocking Commerce Secretary Wilbur
Ross from being deposed in a lawsuit over the contentious plan to
add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. His administration
has sought to bypass lower courts by rushing certain appeals of
adverse rulings to the high court.
Trump's lawyers have justified stonewalling subpoenas by arguing
that the Democratic demands exceed congressional authority, are
overly broad or improperly invade Trump's private affairs. Federal
judges have rejected those arguments, citing Supreme Court precedent
that Congress has broad authority to investigate corruption or
improper conduct in the workings of government.
If federal appeals courts uphold judges' rulings that side with
Congress, Verret predicted the Supreme Court would deliver "either a
9-0 outcome in support" of the lower courts or would simply refuse
to hear the administration's appeal, leaving the lower court rulings
intact.
"This goes to precedent involving core congressional oversight
power," Verret added.
So long as they do not impede a president's duties, demands from
Congress for documents that could cause embarrassment or political
problems do not provide legal grounds to refuse to comply, added
William Ross, who teaches constitutional law at Samford University
in Alabama.
The Supreme Court's first taste of the fight between Trump and
congressional Democratic could come in two fast-moving cases.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2019/Jun/19/images/ads/current/graue_19_cruze_050619.png)
Trump is trying to block subpoenas for financial records that were
issued to his accounting firm, Mazars LLP, and two banks with which
he has done business: Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial
Corp. Judges in Washington and New York, respectively, ruled that
the subpoenas could be enforced. Trump has appealed in both cases
and could seek to bring them to the Supreme Court if he keeps losing
in lowers courts.
The emoluments issue also could be heading toward the justices. The
Supreme Court will likely have the final say concerning potential
conflicts of interest tied to Trump's Washington hotel and other
business interests "because courts have never had to deal with this
in 200-plus years," said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at
Stetson University College of Law in Florida.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kevin
Drawbaugh and Will Dunham)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |