header-logo header-logo

Stormy waters for the president?

20 May 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
21127
Michael Zander on the oral arguments in the three cases against President Trump

The US Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 12 in the three major constitutional cases brought against President Trump—two by Congressional Committees seeking tax returns and other financial information in connection with legislative inquiries as to whether the president misstated his assets to avoid tax liabilities, the third by the Manhattan District Attorney seeking financial records, also including tax returns, in connection with criminal investigation of illegal hush money paid on the President’s behalf to porn star Stormy Daniels (for background see ‘Trump card: oral hearing postponed’, Michael Zander, NLJ, 03 April 2020, p22).

Judging by the oral hearing, it would be surprising if the Chief Justice achieves a unanimous ruling on all three cases.

Because of coronavirus the hearing was conducted remotely by teleconference accessible to the public. The Justices asked questions in order of seniority with the Chief Justice keeping strict time limits. There were two 90-minute sessions. The Justices and counsel

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll