{"id":232011,"date":"2020-07-09T20:22:55","date_gmt":"2020-07-09T14:52:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=232011"},"modified":"2020-07-17T14:11:05","modified_gmt":"2020-07-17T08:41:05","slug":"breaking-president-trump-must-release-his-financial-records-to-ny-prosecutors-us-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/09\/breaking-president-trump-must-release-his-financial-records-to-ny-prosecutors-us-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"US SC asks President Trump to release his financial records to NY prosecutors but not to Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"

US SC<\/strong><\/span>: In a high-profile set of rulings, the US Supreme Court has, in a 7:2 verdict, held that the t President Trump is not immune from criminal investigation and he must release his financial records so that they can be examined by prosecutors in New York. He, however, does not have to share this information with Congress.<\/p>\n

Background of the case<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The cases relate issuance of subpoena to produce financial records relating to President Trump and business organizations affiliated with him, including tax returns and related schedules, from 2011 to the present. President Trump, however, argued that under Article II and the Supremacy Clause, a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process. He asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the subpoena is invalid and unenforceable while the President is in office and to permanently enjoin the district attorney from taking any action to enforce the subpoena.<\/p>\n

Majority Opinion on New York prosecutors\u2019 demand for President Trump\u2019s documents<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

\u201cTwo hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Refusing to conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause, the majority opinion stated that such a heightened standard would extend protection designed for official documents to the President\u2019s private papers<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span> The President retains the right to assert privilege over documents that, while ostensibly private, \u201cpartake of the character of an official paper.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority was also of the opinion that in the absence of a need to protect the Executive, the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence. Requiring a state grand jury to meet a heightened standard of need would hobble the grand jury\u2019s ability to acquire \u201call information that might possibly bear on its investigation<\/span>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

It further stated that even assuming the evidence withheld under that standard were preserved until the conclusion of a President\u2019s term, in the interim the State would be deprived of investigative leads that the evidence might yield, allowing memories to fade and documents to disappear. This could frustrate the identification, investigation, and indictment of third parties (for whom applicable statutes of limitations might lapse). More troubling, it could prejudice the innocent by depriving the grand jury of exculpatory evidence.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/h3>\n

The Court, however, clarified that rejecting a heightened need standard will not leave Presidents with \u201cno real protection.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Following remedies will be available to the President:<\/p>\n