The U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down an attempt by President Trump to keep his tax returns and other financial records from being scrutinized by a New York grand jury subpoena.
There were no comments or dissents from the justices upon issuing the order related to the prolonged legal struggle between Donald Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. (D).
“The work continues,” Vance tweeted in response.
The court’s decision was a response to an emergency request filed by Trump in October to the Supreme Court after losing the issue in several lower courts.
Vance has been after President Trump’s financial records since 2019, when a New York grand jury issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, the accounting firm used by the 45th president, for eight years’ worth of personal and business tax returns, along with other documents.
In particular, Vance is examining payments made to silence women who allegedly had affairs with President Trump, among them porn star Stormy Daniels.
Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax fraud, and campaign finance violations, claimed the payments were intended to influence the 2016 election.
Vance’s office has also said its subpoena is part of an investigation into potential financial crimes supposedly committed by the Trump Organization.
President Trump has fought the subpoena since 2019. His October filing is the second time he asked his justices to block viewing of his records.
Back in July, the justices voted 7-2 to shoot down President Trump’s argument that presidents have broad immunity from criminal proceedings, but maintained that Trump could pose other legal objections in the lower courts.
The Republican head of state then launched unsuccessful litigation in New York-based federal district and appellate courts, arguing that the subpoena should be blocked due to its overly broad nature and that it was intended merely to harass the president.
The Monday order declined to put a stop to lower court rulings against President Trump.
In a statement, Trump spoke out against the decision saying “the people of our Country won’t stand for” politically motivated prosecutions.
“The Supreme Court never should have let this ‘fishing expedition’ happen, but they did,” Trump said. “This is something which has never happened to a President before, it is all Democrat-inspired in a totally Democrat location, New York City and State, completely controlled and dominated by a heavily reported enemy of mine, Governor Andrew Cuomo.”
“I will fight on, just as I have, for the last five years (even before I was successfully elected), despite all of the election crimes that were committed against me,” he added. “We will win!”
William Consovoy, President Trump’s attorney, did not give an immediate response when asked if his boss would submit additional filings to the Supreme Court on the matter.
In a separate lawsuit before a district court judge in Washington, D.C., House Democrats are fighting to get President Trump’s tax returns from the Treasury Department.
The Trump administration had stonewalled the request, made under a section of the federal tax code that says the treasury secretary “shall furnish” returns requested by the chairs of Congress’s tax committees.
The Biden administration has yet to reveal how it will respond to Democrats’ request.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was asked Monday by the New York Times about the matter, to which she replied that she “will seek legal advice on this and follow the law.”
Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee in federal district court in Washington, ordered the Treasury to give President Trump’s personal attorneys a 72-hour notice before handing the records over to House Democrats. But that order will expire on March 3. Representative Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is the one who originally issued the request for Trump’s tax returns.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review various legal challenges by Pennsylvania Republicans to the mail-in voting system. The state’s GOP argued that it was unlawful for the state to accept ballots that arrived up to three days after Election Day.
Three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — dissented from the denial of review in a pair of cases while emphasizing that they do not intend to challenge the results of the election.
