header-logo header-logo

20 May 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Stormy waters for the president?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll