Now: Supreme Court ruling means Congress won't get Trump financial records now or before the November election. Trump's challenges will go back to a lower court for more review.
Here's the upshot for Congress: Supreme Court says lawmakers need to consider four things when subpoenaing the president:
-Are documents really needed to for legislative purpose?
-Is subpoena as narrow as it can be?
-More details the better on need.
-How burdensome on Prez?
-Are documents really needed to for legislative purpose?
-Is subpoena as narrow as it can be?
-More details the better on need.
-How burdensome on Prez?
And in that way the Supreme Court limited congressional subpoena power, and the opinion describes the House’s approach as "essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records.
Chief Justice Roberts here notes the uniquely contemporary breakdown here in the political norms in congressional efforts to get presidential information.
And Roberts says the broad argument from Trump and the Justice Department, if adopted, would "risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities."
At oral argument, Roberts asked House counsel Doug Letter for a “plausible example” of a subject that is beyond any legislation that Congress could write — and Letter did not provide him with one. That's in here.
Very interesting citation here from Roberts, as he says a president's information is his information regardless of where it is held. Then points to a 2018 decision on cell phone location information (that he wrote).
Justice Thomas in dissent says that Congress should seek these documents through *impeachment* and not through legislation.
Justice Alito, in his dissent, details the things he would like to see Congress put forward before courts could give the green light to such legislative subpoenas
