Ruling on Trump’s Tax Returns: 5 Takeaways

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/nyregion/trump-tax-returns-new-york.html

Version 0 of 1.

On Monday, a federal judge issued a ruling that effectively ordered President Trump’s accountants to turn over eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed the decision, and an appeals court temporarily blocked the ruling. So for now, the president can keep his financial information secret.

But the case raises sweeping constitutional issues that could reach the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Trump argued that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, a position that has not been tested in a court.

In a 75-page decision, Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court called that argument an “extraordinary claim” that was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

Here are five takeaways:

The legal showdown started in late August, when the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s accounting firm for his personal and corporate tax returns dating to 2011.

Mr. Vance has been investigating whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The president denies the affair.

In their lawsuit seeking to block the subpoena, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the investigation itself is unconstitutional. They asserted that presidents cannot be subject to the burden of investigations, especially from local prosecutors who may use the criminal process for political gain.

Judge Marrero rejected that argument wholesale. “Neither the Constitution nor the history surrounding the founding support as broad an interpretation of presidential immunity as the one now espoused by the President,” the judge wrote.

Federal prosecutors are barred from charging a sitting president with a crime because the Justice Department has decided that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was following that direction when he said in May that presidents could not be charged.

That position is outlined in two Justice Department memos written during the Nixon and Clinton administrations, citing the burden that a barrage of investigations would put on the president. But Judge Marrero called it into question. He said the memos rely on “suppositions, practicalities and public policy” as well as dire pictures of hypothetical scenarios — and not on an actual case.

Either way, those memos — themselves interpretations of the Constitution — do not bind the hands of a local prosecutor such as Mr. Vance. Still, the question of whether a president can face state criminal charges also has never been tested, the judge noted.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed Judge Marrero’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Depending on what happens there, the losing side ultimately could try to take the case up to the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice said on Monday that it planned to weigh in on the case as well.

That does not mean the high court would agree to take the case. But if it does, it could set a sweeping new constitutional precedent about presidential immunity. Did the framers intend for impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to be the only vehicle for handling any wrongdoing by the president? Should prosecutors with possible political bias have the unfettered ability to disrupt a presidency? Is no American above the law?

The president has fought multiple attempts to obtain copies of his tax returns, which he said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sued to block attempts by congressional Democrats to access his tax returns and financial records, and by New York lawmakers to release state tax returns to congressional committees. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.

But even if Mr. Vance prevails and obtains Mr. Trump’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. The documents would be protected by the rules governing grand jury secrecy unless they became part of a criminal case.

Aside from the constitutional question, the practicalities of the investigation are at stake. Mr. Vance has accused the president of trying to delay the subpoena until the statute of limitations on any possible crimes run out. The president’s lawyers have denied this.

Mr. Vance’s office has been investigating whether the Trump Organization falsely accounted for the reimbursements to Mr. Cohen as a legal expense. It was unclear why the office has attempted to obtain Mr. Trump’s personal financial records as part of that inquiry.