Trump v. Vance

Last updated
Trump v. Vance
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued May 12, 2020
Decided July 9, 2020
Full case nameDonald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.
Docket no. 19-635
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2412; 207 L. Ed. 2d 907; 2020 WL 3848062; 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3552.
Holding
Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution do not categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceKavanaugh (in judgment), joined by Gorsuch
DissentThomas
DissentAlito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. VI § 2
U.S. Const. art. II

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark [1] [2] US Supreme Court case arising from a subpoena issued in August 2019 by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. against Mazars, then-President Donald Trump's accounting firm, for Trump's tax records and related documents, as part of his ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal. Trump commenced legal proceedings to prevent their release.

Contents

The Court held that Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution do not categorically preclude or require a heightened standard for the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president. [3] The 7–2 decision was issued in July 2020, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting. [1]

Background

After Donald Trump indicated his intent to run for US president as a Republican candidate, he was called upon to release his income tax returns in the public interest, as most other presidential candidates did. Trump had stated in his campaign that he would release them once they had been "worked on." [4] After his election victory and taking office in 2017, Trump refused to give over his tax records and stated that voters were not interested in them. [5]

The Democratic Party gained control of the US House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, and by April 2019, the House Ways and Means Committee had formally requested from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) six years of Trump's returns, a power vested in Congress under 26 U.S.C.   § 6103. [6] [7] [8] The IRS failed to comply with the request. Both the Ways and Means Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform filed subpoenas to Mazars, Trump's accounting firm, to obtain the tax information. The Trump administration refused to comply with the subpoenas and asserted that they lacked "a legitimate legislative purpose." [9] [10] [11] However, those subpoenas were directed at Mazars and later at Deutsche Bank and Capital One, where Trump had accounts, and those entities had indicated they would comply with the subpoenas. Trump then tried to block the subpoenas, which led to two separate suits, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, which were consolidated under the Trump v. Mazars suit by the Supreme Court in its 2019 term.

District Court

Separately, as part of the city's ongoing criminal investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in August 2019 subpoenaed Mazars for Trump's tax returns. [12] [13] Trump filed suit against the district attorney and Mazars in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the subpoena arguing that a sitting president enjoys "absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind." [13]

Prosecutors countered that Trump had "sweeping immunity" from a criminal probe while he was in office and that Trump was "seeking to invent and enforce a new presidential 'tax return privilege,' on the theory that disclosing information in a tax return will necessarily reveal information that will somehow impede the functioning of a President, sufficiently to meet the test of irreparable harm." [14] [15]

The District Court dismissed the case on the basis of Younger v. Harris (1971), which had stated federal courts should abstain in the matters of tort claims being brought by the person who was prosecuted by those claims. As such, the District Court ordered Trump to comply with the subpoena, pending a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [13] [16]

Second Circuit

The Second Circuit panel ruled unanimously against Trump in November 2019. The decision stated that the president is not immune from "the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President" and that a state grand jury may issue subpoenas "in aid of its investigation of potential crimes committed by persons within its jurisdiction, even if that investigation may in some way implicate the President." [17] [18]

Supreme Court

Trump petitioned to the US Supreme Court on the Second Circuit's ruling to the New York district attorney subpoena as well as in the separate cases related to the House Committee subpoenas. The Supreme Court certified all three cases in December 2019 by consolidating the two House Committee cases into Trump v. Mazars and handling the New York case under Trump v. Vance separately. [19]

Oral arguments were held on May 12, 2020, alongside the Trump v. Mazars arguments, both as part of the set of cases held through teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observers recognized that the Justices treated Vance, which involved a subpoena related to a grand jury criminal investigation, and Mazars, involving subpoenas related to a Congressional investigation, very differently and expected there to be different results between the cases, with Vance likely to favor the release of the tax records. Justices also spoke of possibly sending both cases to the lower courts with a set of standards to evaluate the subpoena requests. [20]

Majority opinion

The Court released its decision on July 9, 2020, by affirming the decision of the Second Circuit and remanding the case for continued review. The 7–2 decision affirmed that absolute immunity to the president is not granted by the Supremacy Clause or Article II of the Constitution. [21] Through those principles, the Court also held that the president enjoys no absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas directed at his private papers and that he is not entitled to a heightened standard for the issuance of such a subpoena. [22] Instead, Trump can rely on the defenses that are available to everyone else like overbreadth and unwarranted harassment. [23] In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court's order stated that "the President may raise further arguments as appropriate" to challenge the subpoena. [24] In evaluating those arguments judges should be "meticulous" according to the Court, but "this does not mean they should use a stricter standard in evaluating them." [23]

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts wrote that former Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle 200 years earlier that no citizen, including the president, may escape the common duty to produce evidence when he is called upon during a criminal proceeding. [25] Roberts wrote, "In our judicial system, 'the public has a right to every man's evidence'. Since the earliest days of the Republic, 'every man' has included the President of the United States." [26]

Concurring opinion

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that he would have held the case to the standard established in United States v. Nixon , [27] which determined that a prosecutor must have a "demonstrated, specific need" for subpoenaing a President. [28] Otherwise, Kavanaugh agreed with the judgement and added that the Court "unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate." [26]

Dissenting opinions

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate dissenting opinions. [26]

Thomas wrote that the majority opinion, which allowed subpoenas to be placed against the president, created an undue burden: "the demands on the president's time and the importance of his tasks are extraordinary, and the office of the president cannot be delegated to subordinates. A subpoena imposes both demands on the president's limited time and a mental burden, even when the president is not directly engaged in complying." [28]

Alito wrote on his concern that the majority opinion would open the president to potential action from over 2000 local prosecutors and would impair the functionality of the presidential office: "Respect for the structure of government created by the Constitution demands greater protection for an institution that is vital to the nation's safety and well-being." [28]

Post-judgement

On the same day, the Trump v. Mazars case was remanded to the lower court by the Supreme Court with the same 7–2 split. Congress has the authority to subpoena the president as part of its legislative duties, but the Supreme Court found a stronger requirement to exist for the congressional subpoena than for a state grand jury subpoena. Chief Justice Roberts gave the lower courts a list of four considerations to determine when a congressional subpoena is appropriate within the scope of the separation of powers. [29]

At the request of Vance, the Supreme Court on July 17, 2020 allowed the judgment from its ruling to take effect immediately, instead of the 25 days after decision normally established, to allow the district attorney's office to proceed to request documents while the judicial arguments continued. [30]

Remand to District Court

On the remand of Trump v. Vance to the Southern New York District Court, Judge Victor Marrero set a deadline of July 15, 2020, for Trump to provide additional objections to the subpoena. [31] Trump’s revised complaint asserted that Vance's subpoena was politically motivated and overly broad. Marrero declined to block the subpoena on August 20, 2020, saying that Trump's new complaint was not substantially different from the first and dismissed Trump's case with prejudice, which allowed the subpoena to be executed. He concluded: "Justice requires an end to this controversy." [32]

Appeal to Federal Court

On the next day, August 21, Trump's lawyers filed an emergency request with a federal appeals court to put the subpoena on hold, but the court denied his request that same day. Instead, the court granted him a hearing that was scheduled for September 1, but meanwhile, the subpoena remained in force. Trump's accounting records could have been given to the New York State grand jury before the hearing took place, but that did not happen. [33] The appeals court ruled unanimously on October 7, 2020, to deny Trump's objection and ordered the subpoena to be obeyed.

Appeal to Supreme Court

Trump had stated his intent to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and was granted 12 days in which to do so and prosecutors delayed execution of the subpoena. [34] [35] On October 13, 2020, Trump submitted a petition to the Supreme Court for a stay pending its review of the appeals court decision. [36]

On February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the stay request, clearing the path for Trump’s tax records as well as other records to be released to prosecutors for review by a grand jury. [37]

Disclosure of records

Within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mazars handed over to Vance millions of pages of documents containing Trump's tax returns from January 2011 to August 2019, as well as financial statements, engagement agreements, documents relating to the preparation and review of tax returns, and work papers and communications related to the tax returns. [38]

On February 23, 2021, the House Oversight and Reform Committee in the 117th Congress, reissued its subpoena to Mazars seeking the same documents as had been provided to Vance, and which it had previously sought and been unable to obtain in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP . [39]

See also

Related Research Articles

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cyrus Vance Jr.</span> American attorney and politician (born 1954)

Cyrus Roberts Vance Jr. is an American attorney and politician who served as the District Attorney of New York County, New York, also known as the Manhattan District Attorney. He was previously a principal partner at the law firm of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello, & Bohrer, P.C. He is the son of Cyrus Vance Sr., former Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter. Vance did not seek reelection as District Attorney in the 2021 election, and was succeeded by Alvin Bragg. He is currently a partner at Baker McKenzie.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Victor Marrero</span> Puerto Rico-born American judge

Victor Marrero is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preet Bharara</span> American lawyer, author and former federal prosecutor

Preetinder Singh Bharara is an Indian-born American lawyer, author, podcaster, and former federal prosecutor who served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2009 to 2017. He is currently a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for five years prior to leading the Southern District of New York. According to The New York Times, Bharara was one of the "nation's most aggressive and outspoken prosecutors of public corruption and Wall Street crime" during his tenure as a federal prosecutor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal affairs of Donald Trump</span>

From the 1980s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in U.S. federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes. He has also been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault, with one accusation resulting in Trump being held civilly liable.

Allen Howard Weisselberg is an American businessman who was the chief financial officer (CFO) of the Trump Organization. Weisselberg served as a co-trustee of a trust set up in 2017 by Donald Trump before Trump's inauguration as president of the United States. In 2022, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 criminal charges including grand larceny, criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. In January 2023, he began serving a five-month jail sentence with a projected release date of April 19, 2023.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (January–June 2019)</span>

This is a timeline of events in the first half of 2019 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and followed by the second half of 2019, 2020, and 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wealth of Donald Trump</span>

The net worth of Donald Trump is not publicly known. Various news organizations have attempted to estimate his wealth. Forbes estimates it at $2.5 billion as of April 12, 2023, with Trump making much higher claims. Trump received gifts, loans, and inheritance from his father, and he also made money from real estate ventures, hotels, casinos, golf courses, fundraising and Trump-branded products including neckties and steaks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tax returns of Donald Trump</span> Tax returns of Donald Trump

Donald Trump, President of the United States from January 2017 to January 2021, controversially refused to release his tax returns after being elected president, although he promised to do so during his campaign. In 2021, the Manhattan District Attorney (DA) obtained several years of Trump's tax information, and in late 2022, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee obtained and released six years of his returns.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a landmark US Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, who had litigated against his personal accounting firm to prevent this disclosure, although the committees had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mazars was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2020–2022)</span>

This is a timeline of events from 2020 to 2022 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, election day, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and the first and second halves of 2019.

Mark Floyd Pomerantz is an American attorney. He is a member of the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, generally referred to as Paul, Weiss. In February 2021, he left that firm to assist with the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation into the finances of former president Donald Trump until his resignation from the case in February 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York investigations of The Trump Organization</span> American criminal and civil investigation

Two related investigations by New York State and City officials were opened by 2020 to determine whether the Trump Organization has committed financial fraud. One of these is a criminal case being conducted by the Manhattan district attorney (DA) and the other is a civil case being conducted by the New York State Attorney General (AG). The DA's case has led to two of the organization's subsidiary companies being found guilty of 17 charges including tax fraud and the indictment of Donald Trump, while the AG has succeeded in imposing an independent monitor to prevent future fraud by the organization.

Carey R. Dunne is an American attorney. He is known for leading the criminal investigation of Donald Trump for the office of the Manhattan District Attorney until his resignation from the case, alongside his colleague Mark F. Pomerantz, in February 2022. In that role, Dunne successfully argued Trump v. Vance before the United States Supreme Court in May 2020; the court held that President Trump was required to comply with a state grand jury subpoena for his tax returns. Prior to his service at the DA’s Office, Dunne was a longtime partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he specialized in white collar criminal defense. Dunne is a past president of the New York City Bar Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</span> Criminal investigation of Trump 2020

The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election. Later in 2022, a special counsel was appointed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York criminal investigation of The Trump Organization</span> American criminal investigation

By 2020, the Manhattan district attorney (DA) had opened a criminal case to determine whether The Trump Organization had committed financial fraud. In December 2022, two of the organization's subsidiary companies were found guilty of 17 charges including tax fraud. On March 30, 2023, Donald Trump was criminally indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in tandem with an alleged catch and kill operation to suppress negative press during his 2016 campaign, largely revolving around the hush-money payment to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. Trump is the first former U.S. president to be criminally charged. On April 4, he pleaded not guilty. Further proceedings were set for subsequent months, including a December hearing, with a trial expected in March 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York</span> 2023 indictment in New York City, U.S.

The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is a pending criminal case against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States. On March 30, 2023, Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his alleged role in a scandal relating to hush money payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, making him the first U.S. president to be indicted. Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in the first degree, carrying a maximum sentence of 136 years if Trump is convicted on all counts.

References

  1. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Block Release of Financial Records". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  2. ↑ Ford, Matt (July 9, 2020). "The Supreme Court Brings the Presidency Back From a Lawless Brink". The New Republic . The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  3. ↑ Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
  4. ↑ Blake, Aaron. "5 things Donald Trump promised he'd do, but hasn't". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 19 April 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
  5. ↑ Harwell, Drew (September 15, 2016). "All the excuses Trump has given for why he won't release his tax returns". Washington Post . Archived from the original on July 25, 2019. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  6. ↑ Gordon, Marcy (April 4, 2019). "White House pushes back on request for Trump tax forms". Associated Press. Archived from the original on April 5, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  7. ↑ "White House maneuvers to block release of Trump's tax returns". Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 5, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  8. ↑ "Here's how Democrats plan to get Donald Trump's tax returns". NBC News. 20 December 2018. Archived from the original on January 18, 2019. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  9. ↑ Lauren Fox (May 17, 2019). "Mnuchin defies House Democrats' subpoenas for Trump's tax returns". CNN. Archived from the original on November 4, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  10. ↑ Rappeport, Alan (May 6, 2019). "Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump's Tax Returns to Congress". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 28, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2019.
  11. ↑ Rappeport, Alan (June 14, 2019). "Justice Dept. Backs Mnuchin's Refusal to Release Trump's Tax Returns". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 16, 2019. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  12. ↑ Rashbaum, William K.; Protess, Ben (September 16, 2019). "8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A." New York Times. Archived from the original on September 16, 2019. Retrieved September 16, 2019.
  13. 1 2 3 Rashbaum, William K.; Weiser, Benjamin (October 7, 2019). "Trump Taxes: President Ordered to Turn Over Returns to Manhattan D.A." The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  14. ↑ Toby Ecker (September 23, 2019). "New York prosecutors reject Trump's immunity claim in tax returns case". politico.com. Archived from the original on September 25, 2019. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  15. ↑ Larry Neumeister (September 23, 2019). "Prosecutor says Trump wants 'sweeping immunity' in tax fight". Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 26, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  16. ↑ Orden, Erica (October 7, 2019). "Judge dismisses Trump request to keep taxes secret in New York". CNN. Archived from the original on October 7, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  17. ↑ Benjamin Weiser & Adam Liptak, Trump Taxes: Appeals Court Rules President Must Turn Over 8 Years of Tax Returns Archived 2019-11-05 at the Wayback Machine , New York Times (November 4, 2019).
  18. ↑ Trump v. Vance (2d Cir. Nov. 4, 2019).
  19. ↑ Liptak, Adam (December 13, 2019). "Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump's Financial Records". The New York Times . Archived from the original on December 17, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  20. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 12, 2020). "Supreme Court Hints at Split Decision in Two Cases on Obtaining Trump's Financial Records". The New York Times . Archived from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  21. ↑ Williams, Pete (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court rules Trump will have to fight to keep secret his taxes, financial records". NBC News . Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  22. ↑ Sheth, Sonam; Samuelsohn, Darren (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court rules against Trump in 2 landmark cases about his taxes and financial records". Business Insider. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  23. 1 2 Lempert, Richard (October 19, 2020). "Trump's tax returns: Why the Supreme Court should end things now". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. Retrieved November 29, 2020.
  24. ↑ "From Burr to Clinton, Supreme Court Takes History Tour in Trump Wealth Case". Reuters . July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  25. ↑ Ford, Matt (July 9, 2020). "The Supreme Court Brings the Presidency Back From a Lawless Brink". The New Republic . The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  26. 1 2 3 Barnes, Robert (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump's financial records, denies Congress access for now". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  27. ↑ United States v. Nixon ,___ U.S. 683 (1974)
  28. 1 2 3 Ryan, Tim (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court Advances Subpoena of Trump Tax Returns". Courthouse News . Archived from the original on July 11, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  29. ↑ "Trump taxes: Supreme Court says New York prosecutors can see records". BBC . July 9, 2020. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  30. ↑ Scannell, Kara; Berman, Dan (July 17, 2020). "Trump taxes subpoena fight can resume quickly after Supreme Court action". CNN . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  31. ↑ Jacobs, Shayna (July 10, 2020). "New York judge gives Trump deadline in lawsuit over tax returns following major Supreme Court ruling". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved July 13, 2020.
  32. ↑ Higgens, Tucker (August 20, 2020). "Judge throws out Trump challenge to Manhattan DA subpoena for tax records". CNBC . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved August 20, 2020.
  33. ↑ Scannell, Kara; Polantz, Katelyn (21 August 2020). "Appeals court sets September 1 hearing on deadline for Trump's financial records subpoena". CNN. Archived from the original on 2020-08-22. Retrieved 2020-08-21.
  34. ↑ Weiser, Benjamin; Rashbaum, William K. (October 7, 2020). "Manhattan D.A. Can Obtain Trump's Tax Returns, Judges Rule". The New York Times . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  35. ↑ Scannell, Kara (7 October 2020). "Subpoena for Trump tax returns heading back to Supreme Court after President dealt another setback". CNN. Archived from the original on 2020-10-07. Retrieved 2020-10-07.
  36. ↑ Winter, Tom; Williams, Pete (October 13, 2020). "Trump attorneys ask Supreme Court for stay in Manhattan DA's tax case". NBC News . Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
  37. ↑ Liptak, Adam (February 22, 2021). "Supreme Court Denies Trump's Final Bid to Block Release of Financial Records". The New York Times.
  38. ↑ Scannell, Kara; Prokupecz, Shimon; Cole, Devan (February 25, 2021). "Trump's tax returns and related records turned over to Manhattan district attorney". CNN. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
  39. ↑ Wolfe, Jan (2021-03-03). "U.S. House panel reissues subpoena for Trump's tax records". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-03-05.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.