SCOTUS Questions Its Own Authority To Decide Trump Financial Doc Cases

CAPITOL HILL, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2013/06/01: Supreme Court Building, eastern facade. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Supreme Court Building, eastern facade. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)

In a sign that could spell more trouble for presidential oversight efforts, the Supreme Court on Monday signaled that it was not even sure whether the judicial branch had the authority to settle disputes over congressional subpoenas issued for President Trump’s financial documents.

The court issued an order that the parties in pending blockbuster Trump subpoena cases submit additional briefing papers addressing the question.

“The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the Court’s adjudication of these cases,” the order said.

If the Supreme Court ultimately decided that it did not have the authority to resolve the disputes, the effect of such a ruling could cut both ways for the President.

In the context of these specific cases, it could mean that he could not go to court to block his accounting firm and his banks from producing the subpoenaed documents. But in the long term such a decision would empower Trump’s stonewalling of subpoenas, as Congress would not be able to go to court to force him —or future Presidents —  to comply with lawmakers’ subpoenas.

The Supreme Court’s Monday request echoed the logic that a three-judge appellate panel employed earlier this year while refusing to enforce Congress’ subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

In that case, the appeals court panel said that the Constitution forbid the judiciary from resolving informational disputes between two branches of government.

That decision — which was panned by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and veterans of previous administrations — is being reviewed by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is holding oral arguments in the case on Tuesday.

The cases in front of the Supreme Court are Trump’s challenges of subpoenas issued by Congress and by New York local prosecutors for documents from his accounting firm and banks. The additional briefing ordered Monday is due on May 8 and the cases’ oral arguments — which will be conducted via teleconference — are scheduled for May 12.

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: