The Supreme Court voiced concern Tuesday over Congressional demands for President Trump’s personal financial records, but appeared unlikely to endorse his claim that he’s immune from investigation while in office.
During oral arguments by teleconference in a pair of cases, the justices raised the specter that upholding subpoenas from two House of Representatives committees could set a dangerous precedent for the future, The Associated Press reported.
“In your view, there’s no protection for the purpose of preventing harassment of a president,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito told House General Counsel Douglas Letter.
The Democratic-led committees are seeking records related to Trump’s businesses for probes involving government-ethics laws and suspected foreign influence in US elections.
But in another case, involving an attempt by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. to get Trump’s tax returns, the justices didn’t seem to accept the arguments of Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow that a president can’t be subject to criminal probes, AP said.
Early in those arguments, liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that Trump was the first president to break with the tradition of publicly releasing his tax returns.
That case involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s attempt to subpoena copies of Trump’s tax returns and other documents for an investigation into hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal before the 2016 election.
Meanwhile, Letter’s performance came under fire from legal experts, with Law&Crime Network founder Dan Abrams saying he seemed so “woefully unprepared” that “you would never know the House has won every argument in the lower courts.”
“He couldn’t cite a particular standard for what would in any way constrain or constrict Congress from simply going on fishing expeditions and asking for medical records, etc.,” Abrams wrote.
Fordham Law School professor Jed Shugerman also tweeted that Letter’s arguments were “disaster” and that he seemed to infuriate even liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
“Punchy sharp question: ‘Your subpoenas are very broad and very burdensome on the Trump Organization. Far beyond tax returns. You are being dismissive of the burdens of these subpoenas,'” Shugerman wrote, quoting Breyer.
He added: “I don’t know what to predict, but it seems clear that the Court will not rule broadly in favor of the House, and rightly so.”
Tuesday’s arguments ran longer than scheduled, with Chief Justice John Roberts allowing additional rounds of questioning for the first time since the phone sessions began last week due to the coronavirus crisis.
The history-making arrangement — which also led the high court to authorize first-ever, live audio coverage — is set to end with arguments in two more cases on Wednesday.