With impeachment hearings potentially over, the effort to obtain Donald Trump's financial records in two separate disputes now takes center stage at the Supreme Court, with a potential ruling imminent.
In the first case, House Democrats, looking to rewrite ethics laws, have subpoenaed Trump's financial records dating back to 2011 from his personal accounting firm Mazars USA. Lower courts have consistently sided with lawmakers while Trump's lawyers are urging the high court to block what they call "intrusive" subpoenas. If the House prevails, they say, it would open up Trump and all future presidents to unbounded harassment by political enemies.
But precedent lies with congressional lawmakers and their ability to lawfully subpoena the executive branch in relation to the writing of laws. In a Thursday filing, House lawyers argued that the “rapidly” moving impeachment inquiry "makes it particularly important that Congress not be deprived of the information sought by the subpoena."
The second case originates with the Manhattan District Attorney, Cy Vance, who is specifically seeking Trump's tax returns and other records dating back to 2011 in relation to hush money payments Trump made to two women with whom he allegedly had affairs.
But these two cases testing the separation of powers and the executive branch's ability to insulate itself from legal and congressional inquiries alike are simply the first to reach the high court. Other cases concerning records requests and the testimony of former White House aides are likely to land at the doorstep of the Supreme Court very soon. And as much as Chief Justice John Roberts might like to avoid these hyperpartisan disputes, the high court will not be able to avoid taking sides given the urgent nature of the issues circling Trump's presidency.