header-logo header-logo

20 May 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7887 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Stormy waters for the president?

21127
Michael Zander on the oral arguments in the three cases against President Trump

The US Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 12 in the three major constitutional cases brought against President Trump—two by Congressional Committees seeking tax returns and other financial information in connection with legislative inquiries as to whether the president misstated his assets to avoid tax liabilities, the third by the Manhattan District Attorney seeking financial records, also including tax returns, in connection with criminal investigation of illegal hush money paid on the President’s behalf to porn star Stormy Daniels (for background see ‘Trump card: oral hearing postponed’, Michael Zander, NLJ, 03 April 2020, p22).

Judging by the oral hearing, it would be surprising if the Chief Justice achieves a unanimous ruling on all three cases.

Because of coronavirus the hearing was conducted remotely by teleconference accessible to the public. The Justices asked questions in order of seniority with the Chief Justice keeping strict time limits. There were two 90-minute sessions. The Justices and counsel alike were repeatedly stopped in mid-sentence by the Chief Justice

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll