Global Trade Watch’s mission is to ensure that in this era of globalization, a majority have the opportunity to enjoy economic security, a clean environment, safe food, medicines and products, access to quality affordable services such as health care and the exercise of democratic decision-making about the matters that affect our lives. The enactment of laws requiring the President to provide information about his personal financial holdings may be germane to Congress’s authority to manage federal property, direct federal spending, and regulate interstate commerce. Global Trade Watch has led the fight against corporate-rigged “trade” agreements that provide special powers for Big Pharma to raise medicine prices, promote the outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries and undermine the food safety and other safeguards on which our families rely. Term 2019) Mazars Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog Vance Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog. Subscribe to the Supreme Court Conference Preview. The first two cases slated for argument on March 31, Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, involve subpoenas issued by congressional committees. Sign in. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, involve subpoenas issued by congressional committees. Litigation can remedy or deter wrongdoing, impact policy and meaningfully slow abuses of power. NCC President Jeffrey Rosen was joined by law professors Gillian Metzger and Andy Grewal to recap the arguments and dive into the case’s potential implications for presidential powers. Donald Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP Audio Preview remove-circle Share or Embed This Item. Mazars and Trump v. Vance — disputes over whether President Trump must release his tax returns and other financial records to prosecutors and House committees. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit concluded that Younger does not apply, but it still agreed with the district court that the subpoena could be enforced. And in any event, Trump concludes, the Supreme Court should not answer questions about the constitutionality of the subpoenas because the committees did not have the power to issue them in the first place. The Bottom Lines in the Trump Subpoena Cases: More Losses Than Wins for the President, but No One Is Going to See His Tax Returns Soon No_Favorite. Vance concedes that the president may be able to shield some of the information that the grand jury seeks – for example, by arguing that communications are privileged. The President, in his capacity as a private citizen, sued to prevent the banks and other parties from complying. On July 9, 2020, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s authority to issue subpoenas seeking information about a president. Much of the care that we get is unaffordable, unnecessary or harmful. Flag this item for. Prescription drugs are unaffordable and new drugs and devices often are approved without being proven safe and effective. Vance dismisses Trump’s clam of immunity as “novel.” What Trump is seeking, he asserts, is immunity “from providing evidence of private, potentially criminal acts that largely predate his presidency,” even if the investigation is necessary to preserve evidence. An excerpt on executive privilege I found interesting in Trump V Mazars: We disagree that these demanding standards apply here.Unlike the cases before us, Nixon and Senate Select Com-mittee involved Oval Office communications over which the President asserted executive privilege. Health care in the U.S. leaves too many people out, costs too much and doesn’t meet acceptable standards of quality. JOIN THE MOVEMENT In the Mazars case, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena in April 2019 to Mazars, the president’s longtime accounting firm, for financial records relating to Trump and his businesses. But this should not lead to the conclusion that the president cannot be the subject of an investigation, which involves “significantly different concerns.” For example, Vance offers, responding to a subpoena is “far less burdensome than facing indictment or prosecution,” while grand juries provide a secrecy that avoids the “stigmatic harm” that often results from an indictment or prosecution. The U.S. government should work for the public, not corporations or industry. Valid email is required, What are you looking for? Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, the Supreme Court is considering whether the House Oversight Committee can subpoena documents related to President Trump’s and his businesses’ finances from Mazars USA, LLP, a financial accounting firm. Trump v. Mazars, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (Roberts, C.J.). Westwood One Podcast Network / Dan Bongino, FiveThirtyEight, 538, ABC News, Nate Silver. Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (Roberts, C.J.). Public Citizen advocates for ordinary people by taking on corporate interests and their cronies in government. He can also argue that a grand-jury subpoena would interfere with his ability to carry out his duties. The third case in the trio, Trump v. Vance, has its roots in a New York grand jury’s investigation of criminal violations of state law. In his brief in the Supreme Court, Trump describes the committees’ subpoenas as “unprecedented.” The fact that there is no historical precedent for the subpoenas suggests, he continues, “that something is amiss.”. Facebook; Twitter; Email; Trump v. Mazars; Trump v. Deutsche Bank. American democracy is in jeopardy, from the disastrous Citizens United ruling that flooded our politics with corporate cash to the immoral assault on voting rights and the corporate authoritarian in the White House. Trump asked a federal district court in Washington to bar Mazars from complying with the subpoena, arguing that the committee’s investigation into his finances does not serve the kind of legitimate legislative purpose that the Supreme Court’s cases require. But presidents are not categorically immune from a state grand-jury subpoena for documents that do not relate to their official duties. The case reached the Supreme Court, where a premise of the Presidents’ argument is that Congress is categorically prohibited from enacting any financial disclosure laws that would apply to the President. Share. The Court held that the lower courts in these cases had not taken adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information. More broadly, Trump adds, Congress does not have the authority to legislate in the areas covered by these subpoenas. Sign in The justices agreed to take up both cases in December, scheduling them for a combined one hour of oral argument. The government argues for a more stringent standard for subpoenas in cases involving the president.