The federal judge overseeing President Trump’s tax case quickly ordered Trump’s attorneys and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office to outline the next steps in a battle over the president’s tax documents following yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in the case.
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered on Friday that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and Trump’s lawyers inform his court by Thursday about any “potential areas for further argument” after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week the president is not immune from having to respond to a grand jury subpoena.
Thursday’s ruling isn’t expected to result in Trump’s tax returns becoming public before the November election.
Marrero presided over the initial legal challenge by Trump’s lawyers who sought to block Vance from getting tax documents from Mazars USA, the president’s accounting firm.
Trump’s lawyers argued the president is immune from state prosecutions. But last October, Marrero tossed the lawsuit out, ruling in a 75-page order that the immunity claim was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”
Vance wants years worth of Trump’s tax returns as part of his probe into hush-money payments made to two women during the 2016 presidential election. Marrero previously ruled that the tax documents from Mazars USA should be handed over through the Grand Jury, which prompted the appeals fight that landed at the doorstep of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court largely sided with Marrero, writing that the president could be forced to produce the documents.
“Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the president of the United States. Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 7-2 opinion for the majority.
“(W)e cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause.”