Who wants Trump's tax records and what does the Supreme Court have to do with it?

-
Scales of Justice.png

Two legal proceedings regarding President Trump’s tax records have reached the Supreme Court. This report clarifies the disputes and their statuses at the Supreme Court.

Trump V. Vance

icon - who wants records.png

Who is requesting the records?

New York State prosecutors are requesting Trump’s financial records from Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm.


  icon - need records for.png

What do they want the records for?

The NY prosecutors want the financial records so they can investigate whether “several individuals and entities have committed criminal violations of New York law.” Court records indicate the prosecutors have not specifically identified Trump as one of the individuals they are criminally investigating.

  icon - Trump arguments against.png

What are Trump’s arguments against the order to release the records?

Trump argues the prosecutors want the financial records to criminally investigate him. Under federal law, the President is immune from state criminal proceedings, so Trump’s accounting firm does not have to obey the request under NY state criminal process.

The NY court ruled against Trump, stating the NY prosecutors are not making any direct orders against Trump; nor are the prosecutors indicating they seek the President for arrest or impeachment. The prosecutors are ordering a third party (the accounting firm) to hand over documents that are not even related to Trump’s official Presidential actions. On those grounds, the NY court ordered Mazars to produce the records.

  icon - what stage in Court.png

What is the case status before the Supreme Court?

Trump filed a petition for Supreme Court review (on the merits). The parties have agreed to hold the order against Mazars until the Supreme Court makes a decision. The Justices can vote on whether to hear the case as early as December 13, 2019.

Trump v. Mazars and U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Who is requesting the records?

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are requesting Trump’s financial records from Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm.

  icon - need records for.png

What do they want the records for?

House Democrats want the records to help them work on legislation about government ethics.

  icon - Trump arguments against.png

What are Trump’s arguments against the order to release the records?

Trump argues the House Democrats do not have a legitimate legislative purpose. He claims they are impermissibly trying to get his financial records so they can investigate potential legal wrongdoing by Trump. Trump argues that allowing the legislators access to his personal records would open the door to any legislators politically opposed to the President to get access to personal records by simply claiming they need the information to legislate. This would give improper power to legislative chairpersons.

  icon - what stage in Court.png

What is the case status before the Supreme Court?

Trump failed to stop the order to Mazars from going into effect. The D.C. Court of Appeals refused to re-hear the issue. Trump filed a petition with the Supreme Court to block the order (to stop Mazars from giving the information) until Trump can file a petition (on the merits) with the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts is reviewing the request for temporary relief. Roberts can either act alone or refer the matter to the full Court.

Recent Reports:



fromSubscript Law Blog | Subscript Lawhttps://https://ift.tt/33dbpRy
Subscript Law
4 Curtis Terrace Montclair
NJ 07042
(201) 840-8182
https://ift.tt/2oX7jPi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

California v. Texas (Argument November 10, 2020)

-
Image
Argument: November 10, 2020 Decision: TBA Petitioners’ Brief: California, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Texas, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Neill Hurley and John Nantz Respondents’ Brief: United States, et al. Opinion Below: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals   The Supreme Court Will Determine the Fate of the Affordable Care Act...Again Several individuals and a group of GOP-led states are leading another fight to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They are attacking the Individual Mandate as invalid and then arguing the rest of the ACA falls with it.  The Supreme Court will hear the case on November 10, 2020 joined by its new conservative-leaning justice, Amy Coney Barrett. Background Congress designed the ACA to provide all Americans affordable access to health insurance. Without getting rid of the private insurers, however, the government had to help them keep premiums down.  The Individual Mandate was designed to control costs in the marketplace by...
Read more

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

-
Image
Argument: March 3, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Seila Law Respondent Brief: CFPB (Supporting Seila Law) Amicus Curiae Brief: Paul Clement (defending CFPB’s position) Decision: TBA Opinion Below: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court to determine fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Two years after the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a massive piece of consumer protection legislation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, stating its goal “to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices.” The vote passed in both houses of Congress largely along party lines.  As part of this comprehensive legislation, Congress created a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an executive agency responsible for regulating providers of a wide range of consumer financial services, as well as enforcing federal consumer financial protection...
Read more

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

-
Image
Argument: January 22, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Kendra Espinoza, et al. Respondent Brief: Montana Department of Revenue, et al. Decision: TBA Court below: Supreme Court of the State of Montana Montana faces Establishment Clause questions over a tax credit program Montana established a tax credit program that allows people to donate to a scholarship fund for students attending private schools. In return, the taxpayer receives a matching tax credit of up to $150. The scholarship fund provides scholarships to private school students, including those who attend religious private schools.      Montana’s Department of Revenue was tasked with administering the tax credit program. When it began working to carry out the program, it realized the program — as written by Montana’s legislature — came into conflict with the Montana Constitution.  The Montana Constitution includes a provision called the “Blaine Amendment.” The Blaine Amendment prohibits the state from u...
Read more