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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
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?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
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
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
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
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll