Shutterstock
It’s no secret that Chief Justice John Roberts often leans across the aisle in cases regarding sexuality, race, and immigration. However, when it comes to religious rights, Roberts, and much of the Supreme Court, tends to lean more conservative.
However, even with five justices appointed by conservatives, Thursday’s decision on President Trump’s finances came as a surprise.
In a unanimous decision, all nine justices repudiated the president’s claim to broad immunity based on his office. For many legal scholars, this result was unsurprising. After all, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and that document is clear on the separation of powers.
As a coequal branch of government, the Supreme Court is free to rule how it pleases, irrespective of the political parties of the presidents that appointed them.
However, the situation has incensed the president. In his estimation, the situation is tantamount to presidential harassment. “This is all a political prosecution,” President Trump posted on Twitter. “I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!”
Mr. Trump has long characterized attempts to dig into his personal finances as overstepping the bounds of normal oversight. His ire has also been leveled at Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, due to his lengthy investigation of the 2016 election. The president has been adamant that these investigations were unfounded and that they were to appease Trump’s political enemies.
The court’s ruling sent both cases that relate to Trump’s finances back to the lower courts. In the case of the House’s probe, the courts have put the responsibility on the House to prove why they need Trump’s financial documents.
On the other hand, in a case by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, the court ruled that Trump would need to give a good explanation as to why he shouldn’t have to turn over his tax records.
The Manhattan DA’s case is related to alleged “hush money” payments by the president’s former associate Michael Cohen. Two women allege that, during the 2016 election, the Trump campaign, represented by Michael Cohen, paid them money to not speak publicly. The reasoning, they allege, is that the two women claim to have had affairs with the president.
Legal scholars expect that this means it’s unlikely that Trump’s finances will be turned over to the public before the November 3 election. The ruling, thus, was a boon in that regard. However, given that it keeps the door open for future probes into his finances, it’s also yet another blow to the president’s power.
