Thread by @stevenmazie

We'll know shortly after 10am whether the Supreme Court will allow Congress & a NY prosecutor to enforce subpoenas they've issued for years Donald Trump's tax and financial documents.

I've been thinking this morning about what Chief Justice Roberts is thinking about these cases.

Roberts is an institutionalist who cares deeply about how the Court is perceived by the public. He would not want to be seen as shielding Trump from scrutiny to bolster his faltering re-election prospects.

But he wouldn't want to be seen as interfering to hurt Trump, either.

Roberts is also (though not always!) a judicial minimalist. He prefers to turn big questions into small ones.

A minimalist ruling here would involve remanding the case(s) to the lower courts with a standard for what's an enforceable subpoena against a president.

Then the lower courts would have re-evaluate each subpoena under that standard.

But a punt like that would be a huge victory for Trump, as it would delay release of his finances at least until after the election.

And Roberts knows it would be pitched that way.

Roberts is also a judicial conservative who, as Chief, would prefer to have more conservatives rather than more liberals serving with him for the next couple of decades.

From that point of view, he'd probably prefer a second Trump term even though he's shown he's no Trumpist.

So what's a conservative, minimalist, non-Trumpy institutionalist Chief to do?

My hunch is a split: Trump loses the NY prosecutor case (Vance) and wins at least a reprieve in the congressional case (Mazars).

Tho I think Mazars could itself be a split 👇

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1281072497501384704?s=20

We'll see what happens in an hour.