|
|
|
 |
|
FILE -
Former
President
Donald
Trump
speaks
at the
Minden
Tahoe
Airport
in
Minden,
Nev., on
Oct. 8,
2022.
New
York’s
attorney
general
has
asked a
judge
Thursday,
Oct. 13,
to bar
the
Trump
Organization
from
selling
or
transferring
assets
without
court
approval
while a
legal
battle
plays
out over
her
fraud
allegations
against
the
former
president’s
company.
(AP
Photo/José
Luis
Villegas,
Pool,
File) |
|
Supreme
Court
denies
Trump
request
to
withhold
tax
returns
from
Congress
By
Robert
Barnes
washingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON
- The
Supreme
Court on
Tuesday
denied
former
president
Donald
Trump’s
efforts
to block
the
release
of his
tax
records
to a
congressional
committee
that has
sought
the
information
for
years.
The
court’s
order
means
that the
Treasury
Department
may
quickly
hand
over six
years of
tax
records
from
Trump
and some
of his
companies
to the
House
Ways and
Means
Committee.
There
were no
recorded
dissents
in the
court’s
order.
As is
often
the case
in
emergency
applications,
the
court
did not
state a
reason
for
denying
Trump’s
request.
Lawmakers
have
said
they
need
Trump’s
tax
returns
from his
time in
office
to help
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
annual
presidential
audits.
Trump
has
argued
that
Democratic
lawmakers
are on a
fishing
expedition
designed
to
embarrass
him
politically.
Time is
not on
the side
of
Democrats
who run
the
committee.
Demands
for the
records
would
almost
surely
have
expired
in
January,
when
Republicans
take
control
of the
House as
a result
of the
recent
midterm
elections.
“Delaying
Treasury
from
providing
the
requested
tax
information
would
leave
the
Committee
and
Congress
as a
whole
little
or no
time to
complete
their
legislative
work
during
this
Congress,
which is
quickly
approaching
its
end,”
House
general
counsel
Douglas
N.
Letter
said in
a filing
to the
court.
Trump’s
lawyers
said
that was
all the
more
reason
to grant
the
request
to block
the
release
of the
records.
“The
Congress
has only
a few
days
left on
its
legislative
calendar,”
lawyer
Cameron
T.
Norris
said in
his
filing.
“Though
a few
days is
enough
time to
improperly
expose
the most
sensitive
documents
of its
chief
political
rival,
it’s not
enough
time to
properly
study,
draft,
debate,
or pass
legislation.”
Last
month,
the full
U.S.
Court of
Appeals
for the
D.C.
Circuit
declined
to
review
earlier
rulings
finding
that
lawmakers
are
entitled
to the
documents
in the
long-running
legal
battle.
That
court
also
refused
to put
the
release
of the
papers
on hold
while
Trump’s
lawyers
sought
Supreme
Court
review.
But
Chief
Justice
John G.
Roberts
Jr., the
justice
designated
to hear
emergency
orders
from
that
court,
stopped
the
release
Nov. 1,
requesting
more
briefing
and
giving
the high
court
more
time to
act.
The
Supreme
Court
generally
has been
unreceptive
to
assertions
from
Trump —
who is
again
running
for
president
— that
he
should
be
allowed
to keep
records
private
and that
he was
immune
to
investigation
while in
office.
The
justices
in 2020
upheld
Congress’s
right to
subpoena
that
information
as long
as
certain
conditions
were
met;
last
year
they
declined
to block
the
release
of
Trump’s
financial
records
to New
York
state
investigators.
In
arguing
against
the
release
of the
records,
Trump’s
legal
team
strongly
questioned
the
committee’s
premise
for
seeking
the
information.
“The
Committee’s
purpose
in
requesting
President
Trump’s
tax
returns
has
nothing
to do
with
funding
or
staffing
issues
at the
IRS and
everything
to do
with
releasing
the
President’s
tax
information
to the
public,”
Trump’s
filing
to the
Supreme
Court
states.
It adds:
“If
allowed
to
stand,
it will
undermine
the
separation
of
powers
and
render
the
office
of the
Presidency
vulnerable
to
invasive
information
demands
from
political
opponents
in the
legislative
branch.
Review
is of
the
utmost
importance,
and the
Court
should
preserve
its
ability
to grant
it — not
just for
one
‘particular
President,’
but also
for ‘the
Presidency
itself.’”
The
references
to a
‘particular
President’
and ‘the
Presidency
itself’
are from
a
previous
Supreme
Court
ruling
involving
Trump.
But this
litigation
is
unique
because
Trump
defied
modern
tradition
for
presidential
candidates
and
occupants
of the
Oval
Office
by
refusing
to make
his tax
returns
public.
Democrats
began
the
legal
battle
to get
them
after
taking
over the
House in
2019.
Solicitor
General
Elizabeth
B.
Prelogar,
representing
the
Biden
administration,
told the
Supreme
Court
that
even if
there
were
political
elements
to the
congressional
committee’s
request,
the
judicial
branch
should
not get
involved.
“Throughout
our
Nation’s
history,
congressional
requests
for
information
have
been
driven
by mixed
legislative
and
political
motives,”
she told
the
court in
a
filing.
“But
time and
again,
this
Court
has
rejected
attempts
to
invalidate
otherwise
appropriate
legislative
requests
based on
evidence
of
additional
motives.”
She said
lower
courts
evaluated
the
committee’s
request
in line
with the
standards
set by
the
Supreme
Court in
Trump v.
Mazars,
the 2020
decision
that
sided
with
Congress
in
Trump’s
attempt
to block
release
of his
records.
“This
Court’s
longstanding
precedent
forecloses
applicants’
attempt
to have
the
courts
look
behind
the
request’s
stated
legislative
purpose
to the
subjective
motives
of
individual
legislators,”
she
wrote.
“Under
the
particular
circumstances
of this
case,
the
Chairman’s
request
for
applicants’
tax
information
is both
within
the
Committee’s
authority
and
consistent
with the
separation
of
powers.”
She said
the
judges
in the
lower
courts
took
different
approaches
in
finding
there
was no
separation
of
powers
violation
in the
committee’s
request,
“but all
of them
reached
the same
conclusion
— and
none of
them
regarded
the case
as
particularly
close.
Although
the case
has
taken
years to
move
through
the
courts,
those
judges
have
consistently
ruled
that
lawmakers
established
the
“valid
legislative
purpose”
required
for
disclosure.
The
appellate
court
said
Trump’s
status
as a
former
president
figured
into its
decision;
since
all
previous
presidents
going
back
decades
had
voluntarily
released
their
tax
returns,
the
request
was
“minimally
intrusive.”
But even
if Trump
were
still
president,
the
court
found
that the
request
would
not
violate
the
separation
of
powers.
The
court
also was
unmoved
by
Trump’s
argument
that his
tax
returns
might
become
public.
“Congressional
investigations
sometimes
expose
the
private
information
of the
entities,
organizations,
and
individuals
that
they
investigate,”
the
panel
wrote.
“This
does not
make
them
overly
burdensome.
It is
the
nature
of the
investigative
and
legislative
processes.”
It also
dismissed
concerns
that
allowing
the
request
would
inflame
tensions
between
Congress
and the
president
— or a
former
president.
“While
it is
possible
that
Congress
may
attempt
to
threaten
the
sitting
President
with an
invasive
request
after
leaving
office,
every
President
takes
office
knowing
that he
will be
subject
to the
same
laws as
all
other
citizens
upon
leaving
office,”
the
court’s
order
said.
“This is
a
feature
of our
democratic
republic,
not a
bug.”
The case
is Trump
v.
Committee
on Ways
and
Means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|