The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in the Trump v. Mazars case, which will determine if the U.S. House of Representatives can subpoena a third party for President Trump’s private financial records.
Jens David Ohlin, vice dean and professor at Cornell Law School, says that while it seems there is some agreement among the justices to reject immunity for President Trump outright, the Court is still undecided on how to proceed.
“Sometimes an oral argument gives you a sense of which way the court is leaning. This one didn’t. The only thing that’s clear is that the Court is divided. In particular, the questions from Chief Justice Roberts did not give much of a clue about which way he will rule, and Roberts might be the swing vote.
“However, there seemed to be at least five votes — or even more — to reject the broadest claim of immunity suggested by Trump’s personal attorney. On the other hand, several justices on both sides struggled over whether to issue a blanket ruling or whether to allow only congressional subpoenas that meet a particular standard overseen by a court. The real debate will take place behind closed doors in the judicial conference.”