The Supreme Court has accepted three cases involving President Trump in a decision announced Friday. President Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow responded by stating, "We are pleased."
Two of the cases, Trump v. Deutsche Bank and Trump v. Mazars, involve whether Congress can obtain Trump's financial records from his accounting firm.
Another case, Trump v. Vance addresses presidential immunity from investigation. (Trump v. Deutsche Bank also concerns this issue.)
Even before Trump was elected, some Democrats announced a plan to challenge him in court at every opportunity.
In October 2016, Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — wrote, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.”
Wittes wrote that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He also mentioned impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
That plan to use the courts to challenge Trump at every turn seems to have been well executed. However, when numerous cases have reached the Supreme Court, President Trump has often ended up the victor.
We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President's three pending cases.
Jay Sekulow, Trump attorney
Analysts consider it a positive sign for Trump that the Supreme Court will consider the cases. The Justices could have passed up that opportunity and let lower court rulings against Trump stay in place.
It doesn't mean by any stretch, though, that Trump has won the cases. They will be formally argued in the Spring.
On the other hand, at least one analyst says the high Court's decision to accept the cases for consideration is already a momentous one. On Fox News's Sean Hannity program, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it means Trump has a legitimate case to make when he argues that-- due to Constitutional separation of powers-- the executive branch is not bound by the subpoenas of Congress, the legislative branch.
"The Congress should immediately remove the 'Obstruction of Congress' article of impeachment," said Dershowitz. "It's over."
Read the Supreme Court order by clicking the link below.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121319zr_1a7d.pdf
Read a left-leaning viewpoint by clicking the link below.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/20997638/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!
This frivolous onslaught of legal challenges against every breath of air that President Trump breathes in are ridiculous. There must be a way for POTUS to stop it or fight back. Everyone knows theiy're frivolous. Imagine a civilian trying to fight this-- how soon until their resources are exhausted? There must be recourse.