Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,897 posts)
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 11:36 AM Nov 2019

#SCOTUS did not act on Trump's request to block D.C. Circuit's ruling that would allow House of Repr

Source: Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog

#SCOTUS did not act on Trump's request to block D.C. Circuit's ruling that would allow House of Representatives to enforce subpoena for president's financial records. Not clear when we will get an order in that proceeding.

Read more:






I'll get an article when I can.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
#SCOTUS did not act on Trump's request to block D.C. Circuit's ruling that would allow House of Repr (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Nov 2019 #1
Was there a deadline? Did they formally vote to not hear the case? getagrip_already Nov 2019 #2
I'm with you... BlueIdaho Nov 2019 #3
...And lift the stay, I presume? California_Republic Nov 2019 #20
Clarification and source is needed. I was expecting the SC not to bother beachbumbob Nov 2019 #4
Try SCOTUSblog throughout the day. mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #6
Having trouble finding something about the actual decision. Mike 03 Nov 2019 #5
There have been threads at DU. mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #8
Excellent. Mike 03 Nov 2019 #9
De nada. I edited the post to add material. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #11
i predict that if any of these cases has an actual legal argument for it, and mopinko Nov 2019 #7
sounds like they are drawing it out, let the clock run out on this one. nt yaesu Nov 2019 #10
Could be. That certainly would be a way for KPN Nov 2019 #12
amy and others clarrified in her twitter feed.... getagrip_already Nov 2019 #13
No further appeals possible- this is a BFD Fiendish Thingy Nov 2019 #14
Not yet... this was a non-announcement announcement getagrip_already Nov 2019 #15
and more from the experts..... getagrip_already Nov 2019 #16
more about why the decision matters so much SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2019 #17
an in depth look at the cases and what the court might do..... getagrip_already Nov 2019 #18
This relates to the temporary stay that Roberts granted on Nov. 18: onenote Nov 2019 #19

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

getagrip_already

(14,250 posts)
2. Was there a deadline? Did they formally vote to not hear the case?
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 11:52 AM
Nov 2019

I don't understand what the headline means. They had issued an injunction while they looked at the case to see if they would hear it.

The expected result would be an announcement that they have either voted to hear the case or they decided to not hear it.

What does it mean they did not act? They have to act one way or another, correct?

BlueIdaho

(13,582 posts)
3. I'm with you...
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 11:59 AM
Nov 2019

I hope this means they decided to not take the case up - which would leave the lower courts order in place and force Fatso to release the records.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
4. Clarification and source is needed. I was expecting the SC not to bother
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 12:11 PM
Nov 2019

With thus, as it's established law already under the rights and powers of congress . Now Schiff and Pelosi can take the gloves off

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)
5. Having trouble finding something about the actual decision.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 12:19 PM
Nov 2019

I only found this general explanation of what's happening:

The second case, Trump v. Mazars USA, No. 19A545, involves a subpoena the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform issued to Mazars back in April. (The New York grand jury subpoena is almost identical to, and was patterned upon, the House’s earlier subpoena.) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Trump’s constitutional objection, and Trump will likely petition for cert. in that case any day now. In the meantime, Trump has filed an application to the Chief Justice asking for a stay of the court of appeals’ mandate. If the Chief Justice and/or the Court declines to issue such a stay, Mazars will be required to turn over the records to the House imminently, i.e., upon issuance of the mandate. (The Chief Justice issued an interim “administrative stay” last week to enable the Court to consider the mandate-stay motion.)

The Court will probably issue its decision on Trump’s application for a stay in Mazars shortly, perhaps as soon as today.


link: https://www.justsecurity.org/67461/understanding-the-two-mazars-subpoena-cases-before-the-supreme-court/

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,897 posts)
8. There have been threads at DU.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 12:25 PM
Nov 2019

A good way to find them is to go to LBN and search by author, looking for posts by BumRushDaShow. Here's a recent one:

November 14: Trump asks Supreme Court to shield his tax returns from prosecutors

November 14: Thanks for the thread, BRDS. Here's a thread that will help explain the process:

Re: those subpoenas for Trump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in 36 hours

NotOutlandishHat Retweeted

1. With two of the subpoenas for @realDonaldTrump's financial records likely to make their way to #SCOTUS in the next 36 hours, I wanted to put together a detailed #thread walking through where we are and what happens next.

Apologies in advance, but this is going to get nerdy.



.
.
.
12. But as I've documented in a brand-new @HarvLRev essay, the Trump administration has asked for _far_ more stays from #SCOTUS than its predecessors (the next request will be the 22nd in less than three years)—and has received relief far more often:

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/123-163_Online.pdf



13. And an application for a stay tends to be resolved much faster than a cert. petition. So even though we may not know until January whether the Court will take the Vance case, we may know by Thanksgiving whether there are five votes to freeze the status quo for the time being.


mopinko

(69,806 posts)
7. i predict that if any of these cases has an actual legal argument for it, and
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 12:25 PM
Nov 2019

refers to the powers of the congress, they will take it. but roberts is not about to be his dog.

KPN

(15,587 posts)
12. Could be. That certainly would be a way for
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 12:59 PM
Nov 2019

Robert’s Court (the conservatives) to make a decision without making a decision.

getagrip_already

(14,250 posts)
13. amy and others clarrified in her twitter feed....
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 01:04 PM
Nov 2019

Amy Howe
@AHoweBlogger

They issued a list of orders this morning, but there was nothing on the order list about Trump's request for a stay of the D.C. Circuit decision that would allow the House to enforce the subpoena for his financial records.

Amy Howe
@AHoweBlogger

They could in theory act at any time, including today. But on the other hand, they have already put a temporary hold (known as an administrative stay) on the lower court's ruling, so there is not a deadline to act.

Opening Arguments
@openargs

SCOTUS didn't rule one way or the other on Trump's cert petition yet. Delay, of course, also serves the Trump's interests, but I suspect this is strategic disagreement among the Howler Monkey contingent. Check back next week. https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112519zor_8mj9.pdf

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
14. No further appeals possible- this is a BFD
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 01:13 PM
Nov 2019

Either we get the records or we have a Constitutional crisis.

If this is the case including Magars, they have said they will comply with a court order.

getagrip_already

(14,250 posts)
15. Not yet... this was a non-announcement announcement
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 01:31 PM
Nov 2019

They simply didn't rule one way or another. No further rulings expected today, so we wait.

Status quo.

getagrip_already

(14,250 posts)
16. and more from the experts.....
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 01:33 PM
Nov 2019
Uncle Blazer
@blakesmustache
SCOTUS’s 9:30 order list does not include rulings in either Mazars case. Next scheduled SCOTUS conference date is 12/6 but, given the stakes in the Mazars cases, I could see the Justices meeting to consider the cases before then. For now, we wait. But ultimately, we will prevail.


Uncle Blazer
@blakesmustache
·
2h
Replying to
@blakesmustache
Keep in mind, the House Mazars case wasn’t fully briefed until late Thursday and DOJ submitted an amicus brief in the Manhattan DA case late Friday, so one or more SCOTUS Justices may have wanted more time to review the filings. Plus, RBG was ill on Friday. This is NOT a setback.


Uncle Blazer
@blakesmustache
·
2h
Word from SCOTUS reporters is that there will be nothing further today.



getagrip_already

(14,250 posts)
18. an in depth look at the cases and what the court might do.....
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 02:29 PM
Nov 2019
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2019/11/understanding-two-mazars-cases-pending.html

What is the Court Likely to Do?

Because the merits of Trump’s objections in the two cases are so weak, I hope that, if the Court ever reaches the merits, it will unanimously reject the claims, just as it did in United States v. Nixon and in Clinton v. Jones, both of which involved claims about protecting the President's functions that were more compelling than those Trump raises here.

But will the Court grant the certiorari petitions—and, before that, Trump’s application for a stay of the mandate in the Mazars case?

I agree with Steve Vladeck that it would not be at all surprising if the Court, simply as a matter of comity to the President, grants the motion to stay the mandate. Nor would I be surprised if the Court, for the same reason, grants the petitions themselves. If it does so, it would be a mistake to read too much into such grants: As I explained above, the Court should still reject the claims on their merits, as it did unanimously in Nixon and in Jones.

...

If the Court grants the motion to stay in Mazars, the important things to look for will be any clues as to whether a majority of Justices wish to resolve that case quickly, in time for the Mazars documents, if relevant, to be of potential use in the ongoing impeachment proceedings—either before the House votes on Articles of Impeachment (which is very unlikely, given that the House will likely do so in the next three or four weeks) or (much more likely) before the Senate trial.

In particular, watch for answers to these questions:

-- Does the Court expedite the cert.-stage briefing in Mazars so that it can consider the petition at its December 13 Conference? (The House has urged the Court to do so, and Trump’s lawyers have represented to the Court that they “are prepared to proceed on any schedule that the Court deems appropriate should the stay pending certiorari be granted.”)

-- Does the Court rule on the petition in mid-December? (Some Justices might be inclined to want to wait to see what the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit says in the Deutsche Bank case--all the more reason the judges in that case should try to issue their decision ASAP.)

-- If it grants the petition, does the Court also expedite briefing on the merits—which would be a sign that it hopes to resolve the merits in a timely way that might be of practical use to the House and Senate? Or does the Court adhere to an ordinary briefing schedule, in which case it likely won't resolve the case until late June, long after the Senate trial is over?

onenote

(42,383 posts)
19. This relates to the temporary stay that Roberts granted on Nov. 18:
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 02:35 PM
Nov 2019

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants and the November 18, 2019 letter received from counsel for
respondent the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives,
IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19-5142, is hereby
stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Thursday, November 21, 2019, by 3 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.

In other words, the lower court ruling is stayed until there is a further order. There is no deadline. Moreover, the issue being debated is not whether to grant certiorari, but rather whether to continue the stay until the Court decides whether to grant certiorari. Trump hasn't yet filed a petition for certiorari. The Oversight Committee, as a fallback in its opposition to a stay pending action on the "forthcoming" petition for certiorari, has asked the Court to expedite the proceeding by setting December 2 as the deadline for Trump to file a petition for certiorari (or to treat the stay request as if it was a petition for certiorari). Trump's response indicates that they will accept the Court setting an expedited schedule for the filing of the certiorari petition (without saying so explicitly).

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»#SCOTUS did not act on Tr...