It was the most political review of the year for the United States Supreme Court, which began Tuesday, May 12. Claiming to be protected by his presidential immunity, Donald Trump opposes the transmission of a whole series of documents related to his affairs, demanded by commissions of the House of Representatives and a New York prosecutor. The nine judges must therefore decide in this case likely to affect the separation of powers in the United States.

During the hearings which took place by telephone on Tuesday, coronavirus obliges, they seemed torn between several main principles, but also between them. "One of the fundamental principles of our Constitution is that the president is not above the law," said progressive judge Elena Kagan. But, at the same time, "we are concerned about the potential risk of harassment" from the White House tenant, said conservative magistrate John Roberts.

The first issue in the file is concrete: the Court's ruling may help lift the veil before the presidential election on November 3 on the affairs of Donald Trump, who unlike all his predecessors since the 1970s refuses to publish his tax returns. Its lack of transparency feeds speculations on the extent of its wealth or on potential conflicts of interest.

"Witch hunt"

After regaining control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, the Democrats tried to unravel the mystery: three commissions issued orders from April 2019 to the accounting firm Mazars and to the banks Deutsche Bank and Capital One to obtain the records relating to the affairs of the former real estate tycoon from 2010 to 2018.

At the same time, the Manhattan Democratic Prosecutor has made a similar request to the Mazars cabinet as part of an investigation into a possible violation of New York laws on campaign finance.

Posing as a victim of a "witch hunt", Donald Trump went to court to block these injunctions. After losing at first instance and on appeal, he turned to the Supreme Court.

"Bullying"

During the hearing, his lawyers argued that he should be protected from any attempt at "harassment" so that he can perform his duties calmly. If the Court validates the injunctions of Congress, that "will open the door to all kinds of oppressive applications," argued Patrick Strawbridge in the first part of the case.

The four progressive magistrates seemed uncomfortable with this approach. "Concretely, you are asking us to prevent Congress from carrying out its oversight role as soon as it is the president," said Justice Kagan. "This poses a huge problem for the separation of powers," added her sister Sonia Sotomayor.

Their Conservative colleagues instead spent the House lawyer on the grill. "For you, there is no protection" to prevent harassment of the president, launched judge Samuel Alito.

"Above the law"

In the second part, the President's lawyers argued that he could not be the subject of a criminal investigation while he was in office. "Criminal proceedings against a president are a violation of the Constitution," said Jay Sekulow, adding that this was all the more true in the state justice system, where 2,300 elected prosecutors are likely to launch investigations.

The lawyer for New York recalled that the Supreme Court had nevertheless forced in the 1970s Republican President Richard Nixon to hand over tapes as part of the Watergate spy scandal, then authorized in 1997 the continuation of civil proceedings for sexual harassment against Democrat Bill Clinton. For Carey Dunne, who represents the New York prosecutor, "there is no need for a new rule" that would risk "placing the president above the law". Even conservative judges seemed sensitive to this argument.

The court is expected to issue its decision before the end of June.

With AFP

The summary of the France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week

I subscribe

Take international news everywhere with you! Download the France 24 app

google-play-badge_FR