header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 April 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7883 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Trump card: oral hearing postponed

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Zander asks, is President Trump above the law?

The US Supreme Court, for the first time in its history, because of the coronavirus cancelled last month’s oral hearing to hear three cases brought by President Trump. In each case the president is seeking to stop presumably damaging information from being handed over.

Trump v Vance is to block the district attorney of New York City’s subpoena of Trump’s personal financial records including his tax returns for a grand jury investigation into whether several people committed crimes by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, to stop her from talking about her sexual relations with Trump in 2006. Trump v Mazars and Trump v Deutsche Bank are to block respectively his accountancy firm and the bank from handing congressional committees similar records in connection with hearings as to whether the President misstated his assets to avoid tax liabilities or violated financial disclosure obligations. All the matters being investigated occurred before Trump became President.

The issues raised are laid out in

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll