By Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall 

WASHINGTON -- President Trump's lawyers asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to quash congressional and criminal subpoenas seeking financial records from his bankers and accountants, as long-simmering controversies over Mr. Trump's private business affairs came into focus ahead of the full blaze of the presidential campaign.

Decisions in the cases are expected by summer. Losses for the president could force release of documents requested by Democratic-led House committees whose leaders could call further hearings, or lead to expanded criminal probes of his associates in New York. Wins would put that material out of investigators' reach while he remains in office. A third scenario, in which the justices kick the cases back to the lower courts, would further delay resolution of the issues.

The justices expressed concerns reaching beyond the Trump era, asking how their decision might shape presidential, legislative and law-enforcement powers far into the future.

The separate cases involve much of the same information, with both House and New York state investigators seeking records related to payments made to silence two women who claimed extramarital affairs with Mr. Trump, allegations the president has denied. House committees also are seeking documents related to alleged money-laundering schemes and Russian efforts to influence the U.S. government.

Jay Sekulow, a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court it all boiled down to the same thing. "What's really happening here could not be clearer. The presidency is being harassed and undermined with improper process," Mr. Sekulow said.

Throughout three hours of argument, conducted via teleconference because of the coronavirus pandemic, the justices made clear that they saw distinct legal and policy questions in the cases. Their questions suggested there could be different results for the case of the House subpoenas, which lawmakers say they issued to inform potential legislation over ethics, money-laundering and foreign interference, and that of the subpoena approved by a state grand jury in Manhattan, where District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is investigating potential financial crimes related to the Trump Organization.

The president's lawyers argued in both cases that the Constitution shields him from investigation by either the House or the district attorney's office, both of which are controlled by Democrats. But justices of different ideological stripes appeared uncomfortable with granting blanket immunity to the president -- or simply allowing lawmakers or prosecutors to investigate the president without adequate cause, suggesting the court might strive to craft a standard to judge such disputes.

If so, the justices could return one or both cases to the lower courts for additional review, further delaying resolution of the disputes as the November election nears.

"The fact that what I hold today will also apply to a future Sen. McCarthy asking a future Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman exactly the same questions, that bothers me," said Justice Stephen Breyer, referring to Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Republican who in the 1950s used congressional investigatory powers to smear witnesses as Communist infiltrators.

Several justices brought up more recent cases.

In 1974, the Supreme Court upheld the Watergate special prosecutor's subpoenas for President Nixon's White House tapes, and in 1997, it rejected President Clinton's claim that in office he couldn't be sued for alleged sexual harassment predating his presidency.

"How do you distinguish, say, Whitewater, when President Clinton's personal records were subpoenaed from his accountant, or even Hillary Clinton's law-firm billing records were subpoenaed?" said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She suggested that Mr. Trump had provoked the conflict by departing from the financial disclosures presidents and major-party presidential candidates have made since the Nixon era.

"The Whitewater subpoena is the closest analogy," said Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, arguing in support of Mr. Trump's position. "It was never litigated. But I'll grant that subpoena looks very much like this one."

Still, he said, "If we go down this road and the houses of Congress can weaponize the subpoena power in this new way, that's going to sit in the standing arsenal for years against the president and any other constitutionally created officer."

House General Counsel Douglas Letter, defending subpoenas the committees issued to Mazars USA LLP, Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp., said the document demands were related to important matters of public interest in which Congress should play a role.

But several justices expressed concern that lawmakers could subpoena private material from the president related to any subject on which they might legislate.

"It's not a limitation. And it doesn't seem in any way to take account of the fact that we're talking about a coordinate branch of government, the executive branch," said Chief Justice John Roberts.

Mr. Letter said the records sought must be pertinent -- and said the House met that test. The Intelligence Committee, he said, has "an obvious need to focus on the president's financial records to determine if the president is subject to foreign leverage."

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether a president could face so many investigations as to interfere with his duties. "[I]t seems as though you're saying that we should look at these in isolation," he told Mr. Letter. "Why wouldn't we look at all of them...and whether at some point it debilitates the president?"

"If our subpoenas were on top of numerous others from grand juries around the United States, you could look at that," Mr. Letter said. But the three issued by House committees were to "private business entities, " he said. "Not a single thing is required of the president or the White House."

"But I think we all know it's about the president," Justice Thomas returned.

Arguing in the second case, Mr. Sekulow, who also helped defend the president during his Senate impeachment trial earlier this year, said allowing the Manhattan district attorney to subpoena records from Mr. Trump's bankers and accountants "would allow any D.A. to harass, distract, and interfere with the sitting president."

Chief Justice Roberts observed that the court's 1997 ruling allowed discovery to proceed against Mr. Clinton.

"I would have thought the discovery in a case like Clinton v. Jones, even though civil, would be as distracting as you argue the grand jury proceedings are here," the chief justice said.

Mr. Sekulow said the concerns were different, because the Jones suit was a civil action heard in federal court. A state criminal investigation was more intrusive and damaging to the presidency, he said.

Carey Dunne, a lawyer representing District Attorney Vance, said prosecutors weren't targeting Mr. Trump for political reasons but following up on press reports, legal proceedings and congressional testimony that financial crimes related to the Trump Organization might have been committed in their jurisdiction.

Mr. Dunne had a succinct answer when asked what limited a district attorney from improperly issuing subpoenas.

"We believe a prosecutor should be required to show: one, an objective basis for the investigation; and two, a reasonable probability the request would yield relevant information," he said.

The New York subpoenas, he said, required no action from the president at all, as they were directed to third parties that actually held the records.

Mr. Trump's claim of "possible mental distraction" fell short, he argued. "It's based on the notion that the president might be worried and distracted about where an investigation might lead some day," rather than actual interference with his duties.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that in the 1997 case, the court dismissed concerns that the lawsuit could overburden the White House.

"Would you say that the court's prediction in Clinton v. Jones, that the decision wouldn't have much of an impact on the presidency, has been borne out by history?" he asked.

The case helped fuel a trail of events leading to Mr. Clinton's impeachment.

Mr. Dunne noted the trial judge ultimately dismissed the suit. Impeachment followed because "in his brief deposition in the case that the president committed perjury," Mr. Dunne said. "So I don't think it was this court's opinion or the litigation itself that led to those problems. Frankly, it was his decision to lie under oath."

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com and Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com

 

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

May 12, 2020 18:24 ET (22:24 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Deutsche Bank (TG:DBK)
Historical Stock Chart
Von Feb 2024 bis Mär 2024 Click Here for more Deutsche Bank Charts.
Deutsche Bank (TG:DBK)
Historical Stock Chart
Von Mär 2023 bis Mär 2024 Click Here for more Deutsche Bank Charts.