WASHINGTON (CN) — With the coronavirus pandemic pushing the whirlwind conclusion of the Supreme Court’s term into July for the first time since 1996, the justices still must decide a handful of highly anticipated cases, including over Obamacare, religious exceptions to employment laws and access to President Donald Trump’s tax returns.
The court will next release opinions on Wednesday and still has five undecided cases. All of those cases were argued in May, when the court held its first-ever remote arguments due to concerns about Covid-19.
As is common with the end of the court’s term, the remaining decisions are among the biggest the court heard over the last nine months and figure to have weighty legal and political consequences ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
Chief among the unresolved cases is a pair of legal battles in which Trump is seeking to keep his financial records from Congress and his tax returns from a New York City prosecutor.
Probing the limits of presidential privilege, federalism and the relationship between the White House and Congress, the May oral arguments in the cases did not provide a clear indication of how the court might resolve the hotly contested issue.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, in his usual position as the anticipated swing vote in the case, appeared skeptical of House Democrats’ argument that Congress can justify any subpoena so long as it might lead to future, undefined legislation.
“That’s what I’m suggesting, that your test is really not much of a test, it’s not a limitation,” Roberts said at arguments. “And it doesn’t seem in any way to take account of the fact that we’re talking about a coordinate branch of government — the executive branch.”
The dispute over Congress’ ability to access the president’s personal and corporate financial records dates to subpoenas issued in 2019 by the new Democratic majorities on the House Oversight, Financial Services and Intelligence Committees that seek broad swaths of financial information from Trump and his businesses.
The committees, who say the subpoenas are part of investigations into foreign interference, money laundering and the president’s personal conduct, won at both the D.C. Circuit and Second Circuit, with the appeals courts holding they had valid reasons for pursuing he documents.
The Trump administration has meanwhile said the committee subpoenas are invalid because they do not serve a valid legislative purpose.
With election day just four months away, the decision figures to have major political implications. If the court comes down in favor of the committees, House Democrats will have their hands on a trove of investigatory materials at a critical time in the campaign.
A ruling in the other direction, however, would restrict Congress’ ability to investigate Trump and future presidents.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, said the looming election will clearly be on the minds of the justices as they decide the case, but some of the more fundamental and enduring questions are more likely to occupy their time.
“They live in the society, they know there’s a November election, they know that the financial information, especially the tax records, could be very important,” Chemerinsky said in an interview. “On the other hand, I don’t think that’s what they’re going to be focused on. I think they’re going to be focused on the separation of powers questions.”
The second battle over Trump’s finances concerns the efforts of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, who issued a grand jury subpoena nearly identical to the House Oversight Committee’s but with the added ask of Trump’s tax returns.