A federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to inform him whether further proceedings are needed after the Supreme Court upheld the office’s subpoena of Trump’s tax records.
U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero on Friday (pdf) asked the parties to provide him with “potential areas for further argument” if further proceedings are needed in the case in light of the high court’s ruling that found that the president was not categorically immune from state grand jury subpoenas.
The case stems from a dispute over a subpoena issued to Mazars USA, Trump’s accounting firm, by District Attorney of New York County Cyrus Vance for tax records relating to Trump and his businesses in connection to a grand jury investigation. Vance is investigating hush money allegedly paid to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign—adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump has denied the affairs and any other wrongdoing.
Trump has been fighting Vance’s subpoena since September 2019, arguing that the president enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under the Constitution. The district court denied Trump’s application for an injunction over the subpoena and dismissed the case in October. The Second Circuit also denied the president’s request for relief.
Trump’s lawyer argued in the Supreme Court that a sitting president has absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas because compliance with them would impair the performance of his presidential duties. The federal government, who was also involved in the case, argued that a state grand jury subpoena for personal records of a sitting president should meet a higher standard of need.
The Supreme Court on Thursday pushed back on both arguments and said “no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.”
“We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the 7-2 ruling (pdf).
Roberts noted that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals’ decision only focused on the “absolute immunity and heightened need” arguments and thus sent the case back to the lower courts so that the president may “raise further arguments as appropriate.”
The top court indicated that the decision does not leave the president without recourse, saying that Trump “can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties” or the executive could argue that “compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties.”
Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow indicated on Thursday that they will continue the case in the lower courts. “We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts,” Sekulow said in a statement to media outlets.
The White House also released a statement following the ruling, also hinting that the president may raise additional arguments, including constitutional protections, against the subpoenas.
Marrero’s Friday order also indicated that the parties are scheduled for a telephone conference for July 16 to discuss their positions in the case and any further briefing schedule, if needed.
Visit the USSA News store!
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: The Epoch Times | The Epoch Times
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.joshwho.net and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu. The owner of this website may be paid to recommend American Bullion. The content of this website, including the positive review of American Bullion, the negative review of its competitors, and any other information may not be independent or neutral.