The Implications of Trump Ignoring His Subpoena: A Fight Over Testimony and Tax Returns
In recent matters, questions of power and deference have come to the forefront between the United States government and former President Donald Trump. One such issue is the implications of Trump ignoring a congressional subpoena. While the Constitution theoretically protects the president from being forced to testify, there are various legal avenues and backroom negotiations that may mitigate this independence.
Consequences of Ignoring a Subpoena
Ignoring a subpoena carries significant legal consequences. For instance, it can lead to arrest and criminal penalties. However, there are legal ways to refuse answering certain questions as long as you appear in court and assert your Fifth Amendment rights, such as by invoking executive privilege or executive immunity. Invoking these rights is a common strategy used by the president and high-ranking officials to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Despite these safeguards, it is important to understand the potential risks involved.
Legal Battles and Rulings
In March, Professor Sean Kealy and I filed amicus briefs in both 'tax return' cases decided by the Supreme Court this week, adding another layer to the ongoing legal battle. These cases involved three different pieces of litigation, including:
The Vance case, named after the Manhattan prosecutor, challenged a subpoena issued to an accounting firm in connection with a criminal grand jury investigation. This investigation is presumably looking into whether the Trump Organization and related companies and individuals committed state law crimes. The subpoena would result in the disclosure of Trump-related tax return information to prosecutors and possibly to the public in future criminal proceedings. The Mazars case, named after the accounting firm, involved two separate cases: one with congressional committee subpoenas to the accountants and another relating to subpoenas to Deutsche Bank, which is known to be the primary lender to many Trump-related companies.In both the Vance and Mazars cases, the Supreme Court rejected the primary arguments made by the president's attorneys in 7-2 majorities, including Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both appointed by President Trump. The president took to Twitter to proclaim these rulings as “politically corrupt,” a “WITCH HUNT,” and an unprecedented lack of deference to a president. However, these characterizations ignore the actual opinions of the Supreme Court justices.
Past Legal Precedents
In the past, while in the White House, Donald Trump was indeed subpoenaed, and his legal team negotiated it down to written questions that could be answered without him appearing in person or testifying. This tactic, known as a 'stipulation,' has been used by presidents and their staffs to minimize their testimonial duties and preserve personal privilege. However, this strategy may be challenged, and it remains to be seen how it will hold up in the face of current legal challenges.
Strategic Challenges and Future Implications
Currently, legal experts are debating the future implications of Trump's actions. If he continues to ignore subpoenas or refuses to provide testimony, it could lead to more legal battles, increased scrutiny, and potential criminal charges. Congress may also explore other avenues, such as seeking court mandates or utilizing its investigative powers to gather the necessary information.
These cases highlight the delicate balance between the principles of checks and balances and the practicalities of governing. They also raise important questions about the extent of executive privilege and the role of federal authorities in investigating potential criminal activity.
Ultimately, the outcome of these legal battles will depend on the interplay between the judiciary, Congress, and the executive branch. As the legal process unfolds, ongoing commentary and analysis from legal experts will be crucial in understanding the broader implications for both the Trump administration and the future of American politics.