The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to weigh in on a separation-of-powers showdown between Congress and Trump over whether Congress can obtain his financial and tax records. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The Supreme Court on Friday stepped into the political and legal fight over whether Congress can obtain President Donald Trump’s financial and tax records.
The justices agreed to decide two cases in the first separation-of-powers showdown between Congress and Trump to reach the high court. The issue lands there just as the House prepares a floor vote on articles of impeachment.
People walk by the New York headquarters for Deutsche Bank in New York earlier this year. President Donald Trump is trying to keep Deutsche Bank and Capital One from acting on congressional subpoenas over his financial records. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images file photo)
The House cited 2020 election security concerns Wednesday when it urged the Supreme Court not to delay the enforcement of congressional subpoenas for financial records of President Donald Trump and his business from Deutsche Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation.
Any harm to Trump for allowing the enforcement of the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees would be less severe than Congress not getting information it needs to protect the elections from foreign influence, House attorneys argued in a Supreme Court filing.
Gun safety advocates arrive holding letters spelling “gun safety” in front of the Supreme Court before the start of oral arguments in the Second Amendment case NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York, NY, on Monday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The Supreme Court heard the first oral argument about Second Amendment rights in almost a decade Monday, and most of the justices didn’t appear inclined to jump back into the contentious social debate over gun control laws.
The court has long avoided major cases that address the extent to which Congress or state lawmakers can pass laws that restrict firearms, since 5-4 rulings in 2008 and 2010 that found an individual right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense.
The U.S. Supreme Court building at sunset on Nov. 14. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)
December will bring a blizzard of action in federal courts that could ultimately settle the limits of congressional power to investigate presidents and compel testimony — and could play a role in the ongoing political drama over impeachment.
In the next two weeks, the Supreme Court and others will handle litigation about congressional subpoenas for White House and national security officials and about lawmakers’ ability to get documents related to President Donald Trump’s finances.
President Donald Trump’s lawyers have until Dec. 5 to file an appeal to stop enforcement of the House Democrats’ subpoena. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call file photo)
The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily stopped enforcement of a House committee subpoena, siding for now with President Donald Trump over Congress in a case that could reshape the limits for impeachment and other investigations into a sitting president.
A majority of the justices voted to grant Trump’s emergency request to put a hold on a lower court ruling that required accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial and tax records.
President Donald Trump’s attorneys on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order from a federal appeals court in New York that requires accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a state subpoena for Trump’s financial and tax records. Another Trump lawsuit related to Mazars, one centered on congressional power to enforce subpoenas during impeachment or other oversight probes, will land at the high court on Friday. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call)
President Donald Trump’s fight-all-the-subpoenas strategy finally reached the Supreme Court late Thursday, putting the justices in the middle of a heated legal fight over the limits for investigations into a sitting president.
Trump’s attorneys asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order from a federal appeals court in New York that requires accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a state subpoena for Trump's financial and tax records.
A protester holds up a sign during a rally outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call)
A divided Supreme Court appeared reluctant Tuesday to undo the Trump administration’s decision to end an Obama-era program that gives nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers the ability to work in the United States and avoid deportation.
During more than an hour of oral arguments, attorneys for challengers told the justices that the Department of Homeland Security — while it has the authority to end the discretionary program — did not adequately explain why the administration chose to do so.
The Supreme Court building (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Tuesday in a trio of cases with the potential to reshape the nearly two-decades-old push in Congress for more permanent protections for immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.
The cases center on whether the Trump administration properly decided to cancel an Obama-era program that gives nearly 700,000 so-called Dreamers the ability to work and avoid deportation to countries they left at such a young age that they may not even remember.
President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, right, speak at the White House on Wednesday. They delivered remarks on federal judicial confirmations. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump and Republican senators took a victory lap Wednesday to celebrate their push to put nearly 150 of their picks on federal benches from coast to coast.
“It starts with Mitch — because you never gave me a call and said, ‘Maybe we can do it an easier way,’” Trump said during a lively ceremony in the White House’s ornate East Room.
Crowds line up outside the Supreme Court as it resumes oral arguments at the start of its new term on Oct. 7. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call)
The Supreme Court on Monday officially wiped out a lower court ruling from April that had struck down Michigan’s congressional map as giving an unconstitutional boost to Republicans.
The high court’s move was expected, since the justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.
Save for later