SCOTUS rules against Donald Trump, his tax returns can be subpoenaed

Trump Visits St. John's Church

Because Donald Trump is as obvious as they come, he spent the morning tweeting out crap like this:

Even if you don’t follow legal and political daily dramas, you could probably predict that these tweets didn’t come out of nowhere, that there was some particular reason why Trumpy was so agitated and sweaty. It was because today, the Supreme Court announced their ruling on Trump v. Vance, Vance being the Manhattan District Attorney seeking to subpoena Trump’s tax returns. Trump’s argument, from what I understand, is that as sitting president, he is an authoritarian dictator who can never be questioned, subpoenaed, sued or anything other than praised. The Supreme Court just said “lol, of course Trump’s tax returns can be subpoenaed.”

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Trump cannot block the release of his financial records to prosecutors in New York, a major defeat for Mr. Trump, but a decision that probably means the records will continue to be shielded from public scrutiny until after the election and perhaps indefinitely. The vote was 7 to 2.

The court is expected to rule shortly on separate subpoenas from Congress.

Mr. Trump had asked the court to block both sets of subpoenas. They sought information from Mr. Trump’s accountants and bankers, not from Mr. Trump himself, and the firms have indicated that they would comply with the court’s ruling.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that he was immune from all criminal proceedings and investigations so long as he remained in office and that Congress was powerless to obtain his records because it had no legislative need for them.

House Democrats and New York prosecutors said the records may shed light on Mr. Trump’s foreign entanglements, possible conflicts of interest, whether he has paid his taxes and whether his hush money payments violated campaign finance laws.

[From The NY Times]

I follow some lawyers on Twitter, and there’s a consensus building that a larger prosecution – likely for Trump’s financial crimes – is now practically inevitable. The 7-2 vote is especially notable because… well, it’s just rare to see anything other than 5-4. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted with the majority.

That being said, SCOTUS also ruled on whether Congress has a right to subpoena Trump’s financial records and the court said “nope, with a twist” Hm.

Update: Trump is currently having a massive tantrum on Twitter about all of this.

President Donald J. Trump Meets African-American Supporters

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

47 Responses to “SCOTUS rules against Donald Trump, his tax returns can be subpoenaed”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jerusha says:

    Justices gone rogue!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    I wonder how much of this is based on law and how much on the realization that trump is on the downslide(Gorsuch and Kavanaugh).

    • Rapunzel says:


      Yeah, I can’t believe Beer Bash Brett voted for this.

      Countdown until Trump starts insulting him and calling for his impeachment?

    • Rapunzel says:


    • Lightpurple says:

      It’s based on well-established case law from lawsuits brought by Nixon and Clinton. There’s nothing “landmark” about it. Rules that applied to them apply to Trump

    • kelsey says:

      Alito and Thomas are the absolute worst. The other 7 justices (even Kavanaugh) knew Trump had no standing for his refusal. It should have been a 9-0 decision in both cases.

    • E.B. Mann says:

      *rubbing hands together* Mwhaaaaaa-haaaa-haaaaa!

  2. Molly says:

    I am so excited and I am so scared. He’s a mad king and he’s going to burn it all down.

    7/2? Huh.

  3. Rapunzel says:

    I like this ruling. as it seems to prevent tax returns from being used politically by Congress, while allowing tax returns for criminal prosecution.

    Trump clearly sees the writing on the wall as to what this decision will lead to and is shook.

    Oh, and he has no clue what “prosecutorial misconduct” is, right?

    • fluffy_bunny says:

      He has no clue what constitutes misconduct let alone prosecutorial misconduct.

    • Noodle says:

      @Rapunzel, NO idea. It’s like he picked that phrase out of some collection of responses that make him sound smart, but really have no bearing on real life. Sometimes my students will do this in their papers – they’ll put out phrases that on the surface SOUND academic-y – but in reality, are so irrelevant or misused that really diminishes their actual points. I could see the reasoning if he used “Judicial overstep” or something, but prosecutorial misconduct? Uh, show us the receipts on that, Don.

    • Lightpurple says:

      His use of “prosecutorial misconduct” relates to his whole Obamagate mess. He believes he is being harassed by prosecutors who let Obama get away with spying on him, despite the fact that Obama didn’t spy on him.

  4. Sayrah says:

    Honestly I saw both those tweets before seeing this story and just thought they were more all caps rantings of the lunatic in chief. Same stuff different day.

  5. Aitana says:

    I’m just loving it. Finally watching this bas%#*d go down in flames. I mean, it’s certainly way too early for victory laps, but if the polls are any indication, this jackass is beginning to take his last gasps of oxygen. Just saw the Lincoln Project’s latest commercial, which is going for the jugular of every complicit Republican Congressperson (basically ALL of them with the exception of Mitt Romney), & again, LOVING IT.

  6. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Everyone all together…toe-tally-tario-tism.

  7. Sean says:

    Eh, let’s not celebrate just yet. In 2010, Ivanka and Don Jr were nearly indicted on felony fraud charges. The case was dropped by incumbent DA Cy Vance after coincidently receiving a hefty donation from Trump’s lawyer. SCOTUS ruled Vance can view the tax returns but Congress can’t.

    • Rapunzel says:

      Sean- whatever his past misdeeds, I doubt Vance would have taken this request all the way to SCOTUS if he didn’t intend to possibly use these returns for prosecution.

      I agree, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, but Trump wouldn’t be freaking out unless he knew how bad this was.

      • Sean says:

        @RAPUNZEL I don’t mean to be pessimistic but if Vance was bought off before, he can be bought off again.

    • Christina says:

      Yeah, I’’m with you, Sean. The rich slither out of trouble with their financial reserves while the little people get audited and pursued. Even if Trump ended up in jail, he’d get little jail time and would sound like Blagoyovich, the guy who tried to buy Obama’s senate seat, bragging about what a martyr he is.

      I need a win. This “on the edge” incremental justice is making me lose hope as we watch real people get kicked out of apartments and starve.

    • Allergy says:

      It’s amazing how much the Trumps have got away with over the years. It’s just stunning.

    • holly hobby says:

      Except from what I understand, the NY Grand Jury will subpoena those returns and then they will make the decision whether to indict that yam like turd (ya think?). So Vance can’t make it go away. It went through a grand jury and if they want vote to indict it will be a case.

  8. BlueSky says:

    Tick tock motherf@cker….

  9. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    Y’all just lookit donny using big boy words!!!

  10. Allergy says:

    He will now start a random war to distract people from his messy finances. This afternoon he’ll bomb an innocent country.

  11. LittlePenguin says:

    Maybe 2020 will have some good come out of it!!

  12. Kelly says:

    You know it’s not good for Trump when his two SC justices rule against him.

    Even before I saw that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were in majority and how much of a majority this decision had, I figured Thomas and Alito would be dissenting.

    If Biden is elected, he’ll probably have one or two SC vacancies to fill within his first two years. Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserves to retire, and is probably waiting for a Democratic president with a Democrats in control of the Senate to make her decision. That scenario does seem possible with Democratic challengers leading in multiple states (AZ, ME, CO, NC, and MT), enough to regain control of the Senate even if Doug Jones loses in Alabama. I really hope he wins because he seems like a decent person and he’s far more capable than either of his potential opponents, Jeff Sessions or Tommy Tubberville. It also gives them enough votes to confirm a more progressive and liberal justice, especially if some more conservative Democrats like Joe Manchin don’t follow party lines.

    I really hope the 2nd vacancy is Thomas’ retirement. Biden should nominate an African-American. I would be fine with Obama, who certainly is qualified, but Anita Hill if she were interested would be more appropriate and fitting.

    • Lightpurple says:

      I would love to see Obama but there are quite a number of Black justices, male and female, who would be deserving of a promotion.

    • Jerusha says:

      We’re working to keep Doug, our best Senator in the 58 years I’ve lived here, in the Senate. People can help out at @DougJonesforSenate.

    • Pabena6 says:

      Kamala Harris!

    • Lizzie says:

      Only if the Senate gets Democrat majority. If not Moscow Mitch will leave any vacancies open until 2024.

  13. fluffy_bunny says:

    I think he’s not as rich as he wants everyone to believe he is and that’s why he doesn’t want his tax returns released.

    • Allergy says:

      Of course he’s not. He’s always been a clown.

    • cheche says:

      He also doesn’t want it made public just who he owes money to, like Putin and that German bank that launders his money for him.

    • Coco says:

      He’s not as rich as he says, uses every loophole and cuts every corner, countless ties to dark money or hostile foreign interests, and charitable donations of zero.

    • Sean says:

      Not only Trump NOT as rich as he’d like people to believe but he’s practically owned by Putin and the Gambino/Genovese families.

    • Jaded says:

      He has massive loans with Deutsche Bank and Danske Bank in Estonia. JP Morgan has dropped shady accounts they had through DB but Trump continues to play a shell game with DB. They actually sued him for an outstanding loan in 2010 of some $350 million. There are way too many “rogue” bankers within DB trying to make their name internationally but in the past few years the FBI has raided their head offices twice now for money laundering. This will undoubtedly come out with his tax returns which will likely show that Trump isn’t NEARLY as rich as he says. Looks like his grifter daughter and SIL are going to have to support him in his golden years, unless they’re all banged up in prison (fingers crossed).

      • Lightpurple says:

        You are giving grifter daughter far too much credit. She will not help anyone unless there is something in it for her. Once Daddy is no use to her, she’ll toss him and leave him to his wife to deal with or her brothers.

      • Jaded says:

        Lightpurple – sadly you’re right. However in happier news, Melania’s statue in Slovenia was set on fire today and had to be removed. Clearly she isn’t liked in her home country either.

  14. KellyRyan says:

    Oversight committee may continue as in the past. No president above the law. Deutche bank loan due and payable 2021, 500 million, Mary’s book ships on the 14th, Eric Trump promoting global Drumpf hotels. Dumpty continuing his bullying and theft of taxpayer monies. Mary Trump claims her NDA was invalid due to hidden assets, lack of full disclosure. Was Al Capone convicted of murder or tax fraud? Dumpty, we’ll see those records eventually, possibly from Deutche Bank.

  15. Nic919 says:

    While the legal decision follows precedent there is a strong chance the returns don’t get produced until after the election since they tossed it back to the lower court. Clinton had to respond right away after Clinton v Jones but they are letting this traitor play the clock. That whole family plus Barr need to face some serious time. They have committed crimes a million times worse than whatever Benghazi was and even watergate. The criminal syndicate must be purged if the US wants a real chance at democracy.

  16. holly hobby says:

    It’s a good day for the rule of law! I am glad Gorsuch and Brett did the right thing. It really is a black and white issue. I’m also glad it was an unanimous “NO” for presidental immunity = that was written by Roberts in his footnote. That takes away Billy Barr’s entire screw you argument for anyone who dare challenge this asshole.

    Re the Congress ruling. Based on what I read, it was remanded to the District Court to decide. That was what the original Circuit Court ruling was before there turds appealed to SCOTUS. From what I understand, he isn’t getting what he wanted in District Court. So it’s only a matter of time.

    Gorsuch was always known to be by the book (even though his views were narrower) so I had no reservations about him. The surprise was Brett but he even he thinks he can’t justify the no vote.

    Also, Rump, there is no prosecutorial misconduct because they didn’t retry the case in SCOTUS. It is a procedural review of the case. Didn’t Billy tell you that?

    • Lightpurple says:

      The “prosecutorial misconduct” whining is related to his Obamagate nonsense and his insistence that Obama got away with spying on him. He’s actually bashing Barr but he’s too stupid to know or care

    • kelsey says:

      Gorsuch has been a pleasant surprise in many cases. I don’t agree with all his rulings or votes but he has been on the correct side of history in a lot of borderline cases. Apparently he was on Obama’s shortlist for the Supreme Court before he chose Merrick Garland.

      Gorsuch seems like a strict by-the-book jurist. He was very skeptical of the arguments put forward by Jay Sekulow (Trump’s attorney) in the oral arguments for the tax cases. I had a feeling he would rule against Trump based on the questions he was asking.