WASHINGTON — Attorneys for President Donald Trump on Wednesday told a federal judge that they intend to fight a subpoena ordering Trump turn over his private tax returns.
In a status report filed with a federal district court in New York, the president’s attorneys said they had multiple objections to the district attorney’s subpoena aside from the one struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this month and argued that District Attorney Cyrus Vance’s subpoenas are “overly broad.”
“In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 7-2 decision. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”
Roberts also wrote that a “President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually include bad faith and undue burden or breadth.”
“The President should not be required, for example, to litigate the subpoena’s breadth or whether it was issued in bad faith without understanding the nature and scope of the investigation and why the District Attorney needs all of the documents he has demanded,” Trump’s lawyers argued in their status report.
A status conference in the case is scheduled for Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday scolded his fellow Supreme Court Justices over its controversial ruling on DACA.
In a 5-4 decision earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled to block President Donald Trump’s request to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama era program which prevents young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children from being deported for a set period of time.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion, said the court took issue with the Trump administration’s reasoning for eliminating the program and ultimately determined that the Department of Homeland Security did not follow proper procedure in its decision to end the program and that the department did not have the authority to do so.
“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote. “The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”
Thomas then slammed his colleagues for giving the “green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches.”
“The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end,” Thomas wrote, adding, “The majority’s opinion supports the idea that a president is “not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”