Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Claim To Absolute Immunity

President Donald Trump was handed a huge defeat by the United States Supreme Court, which rejected his claims of complete presidential immunity while upholding subpoenas seeking his tax returns and financial records.

The Supreme Court Thursday also reaffirmed the hallowed legal principle no one -- not even the president of the United States -- is above the law in two separate rulings that handed a complete win to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a partial victory to House Democrats.

Trump claims he has categorical immunity as president to block any subpoena. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on each of two separate cases before it on whether Trump can defy subpoenas and withhold information about his taxes and other matters on the mere claim he has total immunity from any lawsuit while in office. 

It agreed with lawsuits brought against Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, and three House committees seeking to force Trump to reveal his taxes and other financial records as part of ongoing investigations. Vance and the Democrats issued subpoenas to third parties for Trump's financial records. The subpoenas weren't directed at Trump himself.

Vance issued a subpoena to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars LLP, for various tax returns and other financial records. This information will be turned over to a grand jury as part of Vance's criminal investigation. The Supreme Court ruled Vance can enforce his subpoena.

Three House committees sent subpoenas to Mazars and two banks for his financial records as part of their investigation. In April 2019, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Mazars seeking eight years of accounting and other financial information.

The House Financial Services Committee also wanted Trump's financial records as it's investigating possible money laundering in U.S. property deals involving Trump. The House Intelligence Committee is investigating if Trump's dealings left him vulnerable to the influence of foreign individuals or governments.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump's argument that he's immune from any criminal process. He said Trump's argument "runs up against the 200 years of precedent establishing that Presidents, and their official communications, are subject to judicial process."

"We affirm that principle today and hold that the president is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need," said the majority opinion.

Roberts also dismissed outright Trump's claim submitting to the subpoenas will subject future presidents to harassment by local prosecutors. He pointed out the Supreme Court in 1997 rejected a similar argument made by former president Bill Clinton. The former president faced a civil lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, a woman who accused him of making unwanted sexual advances.

Vance called the Supreme Court ruling "a tremendous victory for our nation's system of justice and its founding principle that no one -- not even a president -- is above the law."

He said investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by Trump's lawsuit, will resume. He said his office will be guided as always by the grand jury's solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.

Reacting to the Supreme Court decision, Trump tweeted it's "not fair" he has "to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York." He also falsely claimed the court has given "broad deference" to presidents in the past.

Because of the ruling, Trump must comply with legitimate demands from a grand jury in New York investigating Trump's alleged hush money payments to two women that claimed to have had sex with him.

Legal experts said it's unlikely the general public will see Trump's financial records before the November 3 election, if ever, because the grand jury operates in secret.

In the second ruling, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked subpoenas from the three House committees on the grounds Democratic lawmakers failed to show how a decade's worth of Trump's financial records were needed to formulate new legislation. The justices sent those cases back to lower courts.