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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll