(Pixabay image)

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued rulings in two cases concerning President Trump’s private tax documents, one addressing a prosecutor’s demand for information and another a request from House Democrats.

Both cases were sent back down to lower courts, with the high court’s determination that the prosecutor likely has a right to demand the information while the Democrats’ request is less certain.

CNN analyst Chris Cillizza suggested the decisions “could lead to major problems for him once he leaves office.”

Trump has argued he cannot release the tax documents to the public, as other presidents have, until they are no longer under audit.

TRENDING: John Solomon: Indictments coming in Russia investigation

Cillizza explained the case was largely political, and the decisions Thursday mean “the public isn’t going to get a look at his tax returns before the November election.”

He said that had the documents been delivered to the House Democrats, it “would have ensured they would have leaked publicly.” The other case involved the New York prosecutor’s demand, and now the cases must be revisited at lower courts.

Fox News and talk-radio host Mark Levin warned the ruling could have a long shadow.

“The Supreme Court just opened itself up to congressional demands for the individual justices’ tax returns,” he said.

“I can see a situation in which the House or the Senate decides that it must have access to all of the justices’ tax and financial records each year to determine if they’re influence[d] in any way to write the decisions they write or vote the way they vote on numerous cases.”

Levin explained, “The justices will not be able to argue that they are immune as a matter of separation of powers as they just shot down that argument as applies to the president.”

One Twitter user wrote: “I’m going with Maxine Waters-tax returns along with Pelosi.”

Another asked, “Can we now ask for every member of congress for 10 years of their taxes?”

Two others said their target would be Chief Justice John Roberts.

Twitter user J.Moore wrote: “Seems to me we can go after ALL of congress now? Nice! Every American citizen has skin in THAT game. It’s about time for some REAL transparency.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinions, warning of the unintended consequences.

“Never before has a local prosecutor subpoenaed the records of a sitting president. The court’s decision threatens to impair the functioning of the presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the nation’s 2,300+ local prosecutors.”

One of the arguments was that subjecting a sitting president to demands for his personal documents could interfere with his constitutional responsibility to defend the United States.

Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s personal lawyers, promised “additional constitutional and legal issues” now would be presented to the lower courts.

Philip Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said there’s “a lot of play left in these cases.”

“SCOTUS ruled in favor in the Vance case, but we may never see Trump’s records anytime soon. Trump still has defenses he can raise.”


You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...