SCOTUS

[seacoaster]

This just in:

"In the summer of 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. That program allows certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief are also eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Five years later, the Attorney General advised DHS to rescind DACA, based on his conclusion that it was unlawful. The Department’s Acting Secretary issued a memorandum terminating the program on that basis. The termination was challenged by affected individuals and third parties who alleged, among other things, that the Acting Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on her decision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated."

The Administration's attempt to block DACA fails, for now.

[jhu72]

This just in:

"In the summer of 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. That program allows certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief are also eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Five years later, the Attorney General advised DHS to rescind DACA, based on his conclusion that it was unlawful. The Department’s Acting Secretary issued a memorandum terminating the program on that basis. The termination was challenged by affected individuals and third parties who alleged, among other things, that the Acting Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on her decision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated."

The Administration's attempt to block DACA fails, for now.

Nothing about this decision is really surprising. I would have guessed Gorsuch would have gone the other way. But I would not really call it surprising, his vote. Most people would have correctly predicted the way he voted.

[CU77]

all true, but i question whether that's how it will be perceived. it's pretty strong language.

also, i don't necessarily disagree with it. it may reflect how many voters may think in america today.

Many voters do think this way. I thought this way myself until quite recently.

But there's been a significant shift of national opinion. Most striking to me has been that the percentage of people who are OK with NFL players' kneeling has risen from 35% in 2018 to 52% now:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -kneeling/

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

all true, but i question whether that's how it will be perceived. it's pretty strong language.

also, i don't necessarily disagree with it. it may reflect how many voters may think in america today.

Many voters do think this way. I thought this way myself until quite recently.

But there's been a significant shift of national opinion. Most striking to me has been that the percentage of people who are OK with NFL players' kneeling has risen from 35% in 2018 to 52% now:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -kneeling/

i guess it's more of an attenuation- if you are a second generation white american immigrant from... i dunno, bucharest, how is that related to a NW european immigrant 400 years ago imposing bondage?

it's a hard a question to answer. i think the answer is- regardless of all that, you benefit today because of what people see- that you're white.

sure- but that doesnt change the calculus that the romanian nor her ancestors is hardly responsible for someone else's past.

the present? maybe. that's a whole 'nother discussion on nonfeasance. thanks for chatting with me.

[CU77]

The thing I have come to believe and appreciate over the past few years (and as I'm 64, this proves that I'm a pretty slow learner) is that the day-to-day lives of people in my country, the United States of America, who have dark skin is mostly very very different that the day-to-day lives of people who have light skin.

Obama advisor David Axelrod wrote about this recently:

I spent more than two decades in politics working to tear down barriers to black and Hispanic candidates in places where they had not won before. I had the honor of helping to elect and reelect America’s first black president.

I thought all of this reflected a deep understanding of the struggle — a certification of my manifest commitment to justice and equal rights.

I was wrong.

Despite my work, I was too often oblivious — or at least inattentive — to the everyday mistreatment of people of color, including friends and colleagues, in ways large and small.

Although I was reporting on the issues of police brutality and unequal justice as a journalist, I didn’t experience it. My kids didn’t experience it. And I never really engaged my black friends and colleagues about their own experiences. I never asked, so far as I can remember, about their own interactions with police or their fears for their children.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

As a white person, I spent most of my life oblivious to the daily grind of life with a label you cannot remove (your dark skin) among a majority of people without that label, a big percentage of which fear you.

Here's Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is black, writing just today:

I, like many other Black Americans, have found myself choking on my own fears and disbelief when faced with the realities of an encounter with law enforcement. At the age of 21, I was pulled over for simply having an improper headlight, and yet the officer felt the need to place his hand on his weapon and call me “boy.” Even today, while I have the privilege of serving as a United States senator, I am not immune to being stopped while driving at home or even while walking onto the grounds of the Capitol. Each time, I hold my breath and each time, I have been able to exhale and go about my business. Thank God!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 214395001/

This is how a black Senator gets treated in our nation's capital. This is the fear he feels every day while driving to and from work.

Does that not disgust you? It sure does me. I want it to change, and I will work for that change, despite the fact that I can truthfully claim (as Biden did 45 years ago) that "it's not my fault" that black people are treated this way. I don't have to be at fault for an injustice to want to rectify it.

[njbill]

Trump is now tweeting that the Supreme Court’s DACA decision is a “shotgun blast into the face of Republicans.”

Sounds like the very stable genius has become a little (a lot?) less stable.

Trump seems to be afflicted with some type of mental condition that causes him to advocate violence at least once every couple of weeks. So sad.

[njbill]

If he loses his tax return cases in the next week or two, they are going to have to add some padding to Bunker Boy’s basement cell.

[ggait]

Trump is now tweeting that the Supreme Court’s DACA decision is a “shotgun blast into the face of Republicans.”

Sounds like the very stable genius has become a little (a lot?) less stable.

This case really shows what a sleazy despicable coward Trump is. And how toady-ish and servile our current DOJ is. Bear with the legal analysis and you'll see the depths of Trump's pathetic-ness.

DACA is an Obama executive order. Just the stroke of a pen. If Trump wanted to end DACA, he could Sharpie it out of existence in 3 seconds today. Literally.

Instead, Trump wants to simultaneously (i) appear tough on immigration to the MAGAs and (ii) avoid all responsibility for ending DACA, since doing so is politically toxic. After all, the vast majority of normal American people want the Dreamers to be protected. So here's what Bone Spurs and his lap dog DOJ did.

1. They concoct a silly theory that DACA is illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Because #1 is true (even though #1 is clearly false), hey -- my hands are tied. I can't legally enforce the all that unconstitutional executive "fiat-ing" done by my Muslim predecessor.
3. Therefore, DACA is over. Not because I want it to be -- I love the Dreamers!! But because of, you know, that Muslim guy in the tan suit tearing up the Constitution.
4. I'll let the Dreamers stay, but you have to give me my stupid wall and a bunch of other noxious garbage as well. TL/DR -- I'm taking Dreamer hostages.

In response, SCOTUS says GMAFB.

You can end DACA any time you want, Bone Spurs. But YOU have to end it. No way you can get us Courts to do your dirty work in hostage taking. We see there's a president who is into shredding the Constitution, but he ain't tan suit guy. And since we know you have no balls, Mr. President, we know you will do nothing beyond diddle with your thumbs. So the Dreamers are still gonna be good. And GTFO out of our courtroom.

The fact that DOJ took this baseless bad faith kabuki dance all the way to SCOTUS makes me SMH.

[CU88]

If he loses his tax return cases in the next week or two, they are going to have to add some padding to Bunker Boy’s basement cell.

Any idea on when and how the tax return case, or is it cases, is going to be ruled?

[ggait]

If he loses his tax return cases in the next week or two, they are going to have to add some padding to Bunker Boy’s basement cell.

Nah -- they'll just have to give him some extra therapy for thumb carpel tunnel syndrome. Does Bunker Boy actually do anything else these days except watch TV and tweet?

I'm predicting a SCOTUS punt on the tax returns. Not seeing any of that stuff before the election.

Something like "Congress has a right to see certain things, but Congress has to pass this test to see stuff. So let's send this back to the lower court and have the lower court hold a bunch of new hearings on whether Congress has/has not passed the test."

Can successfully kicked down the road.

P.S. All SCOTUS cases are decided by June 30.

[njbill]

Trump is now tweeting that the Supreme Court’s DACA decision is a “shotgun blast into the face of Republicans.”

Sounds like the very stable genius has become a little (a lot?) less stable.

This case really shows what a sleazy despicable coward Trump is. And how toady-ish and servile our current DOJ is. Bear with the legal analysis and you'll see the depths of Trump's pathetic-ness.

DACA is an Obama executive order. Just the stroke of a pen. If Trump wanted to end DACA, he could Sharpie it out of existence in 3 seconds today. Literally.

Instead, Trump wants to simultaneously (i) appear tough on immigration to the MAGAs and (ii) avoid all responsibility for ending DACA, since doing so is politically toxic. After all, the vast majority of normal American people want the Dreamers to be protected. So here's what Bone Spurs and his lap dog DOJ did.

1. They concoct a silly theory that DACA is illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Because #1 is true (even though #1 is clearly false), hey -- my hands are tied. I can't legally enforce the all that unconstitutional executive "fiat-ing" done by my Muslim predecessor.
3. Therefore, DACA is over. Not because I want it to be -- I love the Dreamers!! But because of, you know, that Muslim guy in the tan suit tearing up the Constitution.
4. I'll let the Dreamers stay, but you have to give me my stupid wall and a bunch of other noxious garbage as well. TL/DR -- I'm taking Dreamer hostages.

In response, SCOTUS says GMAFB.

You can end DACA any time you want, Bone Spurs. But YOU have to end it. No way you can get us Courts to do your dirty work in hostage taking. We see there's a president who is into shredding the Constitution, but he ain't tan suit guy. And since we know you have no balls, Mr. President, we know you will do nothing beyond diddle with your thumbs. So the Dreamers are still gonna be good. And GTFO out of our courtroom.

The fact that DOJ took this baseless bad faith kabuki dance all the way to SCOTUS makes me SMH.

+100.

[njbill]

If he loses his tax return cases in the next week or two, they are going to have to add some padding to Bunker Boy’s basement cell.

Nah -- they'll just have to give him some extra therapy for thumb carpel tunnel syndrome. Does Bunker Boy actually do anything else these days except watch TV and tweet?

I'm predicting a SCOTUS punt on the tax returns. Not seeing any of that stuff before the election.

Something like "Congress has a right to see certain things, but Congress has to pass this test to see stuff. So let's send this back to the lower court and have the lower court hold a bunch of new hearings on whether Congress has/has not passed the test."

Can successfully kicked down the road.

P.S. All SCOTUS cases are decided by June 30.

I agree. I think that is pretty much what I said after the argument. The majority will find there is some type of heightened need standard that needs to be met and will send it back to the lower courts. The cases won’t make their way back to the Supreme Court before the election. Trump might win one of the cases, however.

[njbill]

I did listen. Thought CSPN did a nice job, except for when they cut away briefly.

First, to the bottom line. Who wins? Beats me, but I’ll give you my guesses, below. I suspect the Court will issue a mixed-bag ruling. There are actually four cases. Three involve subpoenas by House committees (Oversight, Financial Services, and Intelligence). One involves the Manhattan D.A.

I think the House’s Oversight Committee’s case might be the weakest. They subpoenaed Trump’s records after Michael Cohen testified Trump inflated the value of his assets to apply for loans and deflated them to try to reduce his real estate taxes. Trump says this committee is investigating him and isn’t pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose. I’ll go way out on a limb and predict Trump wins 5-4 or 6-3 (Breyer). It seemed to me that most of the justices were concerned about the potential for Congress to harass the president. At the same time the Court seems to understand the House has a right to legislate. Of the three House cases, this one seems to be the closest to “investigation” as opposed to “legislation.”

The other two House subpoenas seem to have better chances. The House Financial Services Committee subpoenaed records from Trump's banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Also, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, claiming it was investigating potential leverage that foreign actors may have over Trump, his family, and his businesses. The president's lawyers argue the subpoenas are extraordinarily broad because they seek more than a decade's worth of documents, cover members of his family who have never held public office, and ask for virtually every financial detail the institutions might have about their private affairs.

It seemed to me that there was some sentiment on the Court that these subpoenas could be in furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose, which is to amend the laws on financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or bank fraud. The four liberal justices all seem to be disposed to rule against Trump. Alito and Thomas seem to be for Trump. Not sure about Kav (maybe Trump?). Roberts seemed to be clearly looking for a way to balance the competing interests. I assume he’ll favor a balancing test. Not clear how he’ll strike the balance. Surprisingly to me, Gorsuch seemed to be leaning in the House’s favor. Does that signal how he’ll rule? Who knows? My guess is the Court is going to rule that Congress can subpoena the president’s records, but will impose some sort of heightened need standard (one that would address possible harassment), and then remand to the trial court to determine if the standard has been met. And then the trial court’s decision would wend its way back up to the Supreme Court, but not before the election. So let’s say 6-3 (liberals plus the Chief and Gorsuch) for the House.

Giving the House two wins and one loss would send a signal to Congress that you can subpoena the president for legitimate or quasi-legit legislative reasons, but you can't investigate him (absent an impeachment) or harass him. In other words, there are limits on Congress' subpoena power.

In the last case, a NY state grand jury subpoenaed Trump’s records as part of a criminal investigation into the Stormy Daniels payoff. This one seems to be Trump’s weakest case. There seemed to be near unanimous sentiment on the Court favoring grand jury subpoenas to one degree or another. A good bit of discussion seemed to revolve around what standard should be applied to reviewing a state grand jury subpoena directed at a sitting president. The liberals advocated that the same standard used for a regular citizen should apply. Most of the conservatives seemed to push for a “heightened need” standard. I am going to go out on a limb and say the decision will be 9-0 (or maybe 8-1 or 7-2 (Thomas and/or Alito), but that the majority will find a heightened need standard applies. And the Court will remand for the trial court to decide if the standard has been met. Again, the Court would be ducking making a decision before the election. There would be a four liberal justice concurrence saying: (a) the regular standard should apply; and (b) under either standard, the state met its burden.

There was little to no discussion of the “political question” issue applicable to the House cases, which got some publicity a week or two ago when the Court ordered counsel to brief the issue. I’ve read that all sides argued to the Court in their supplemental briefs that the cases should not be dismissed on those grounds. There were comments today at the argument to the effect that the accountants/banks would comply with the subpoenas unless the Supreme Court ruled them to be invalid (which a dismissal on political question grounds wouldn’t do). There was mention that the accountants and banks did not want to run the risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

It seemed to me that some of the liberal justices thought that ruling for the House would likely result in compromises on subpoenas between Congress and presidents in the future, which is pretty much what has occurred in the past. Ruling for Trump, however, will result in full-blown stonewalling by future presidents.

Sekulow abandoned the ridiculous argument that police or prosecutors cannot even investigate a crime committed by a president while he is in office, but did argue a sitting president has full immunity from legal process (in the context of this case, immunity from having his tax returns subpoenaed). His position seems to be squarely inconsistent with the Nixon and Clinton cases. It did not seem that any justice was receptive to this absolute immunity argument. At least there don’t seem to be five votes.

Surprisingly to me, the NY state attorney said he was conceding a state could not indict a sitting president. Perhaps this was a concession he felt he needed to make to help improve his case’s chances of success. He may have felt some of the justices thought he is intending to indict Trump before the election. This concession was very disappointing to me. I don’t think it was one he absolutely had to make. Plus, I think it’s wrong as a matter of law. At least it is an issue the Supreme Court needs to decide, not some back-room DOJ flunkie. Of course, this concession does not bind future state prosecutors, but it clearly puts the kibosh on my prediction that NY would indict Trump this fall. Ain’t gonna happen.

There was some discussion about how the statute of limitations would apply if the president is immune from prosecution. It seems to me this issue also has relevance to whether a sitting president can be indicted. I’m not a criminal law expert, but I thought the SOL was tolled when the indictment was handed down. So in this case, if NY wins and gets the tax returns, why won’t they still have SOL problems if they can’t indict Trump until he leaves office? There was discussion about whether the SOL would be tolled, but while there are decent arguments it should be, the issue is entirely undecided. It is certainly possible that some future court could hold the SOL was not tolled and that any criminal charges against an ex-president are time-barred.

The NY attorney also conceded that federal courts have the power to review state grand jury subpoenas issued to sitting presidents. Yeah, maybe this Supreme Court would include that in an opinion, but I didn’t see the need to make this concession. Again, maybe he did it to try to help his case with this Court.

Most impressive justices to me: Kagan, Gorsuch. Next: Alito. Next: Roberts. Next: Breyer, Sotomayor, Thomas. Least: Ginsburg (though she should be graded on a curve), Kavanaugh.

In terms of the advocates, I thought the House’s was the weakest. The two government attorneys were competent and polished, but otherwise not remarkable. I'd put the first Trump attorney in the same category as the two government counsel. Competent, not flashy. Sekulow was Sekulow. Not too bad. Somewhat similar to what we saw at the impeachment trial, though he dialed back his NY bombast as he should have given the audience. Surprisingly to me, I though the NY state attorney was by far the best advocate today. Was very impressed with him.

There were no toilet flushes.

The only thing I can say for sure is that all of the above predictions will be wrong. Apologies to seacoaster if he heard an entirely different argument.

CU88, these were my thoughts after the oral argument.

[jhu72]

If he loses his tax return cases in the next week or two, they are going to have to add some padding to Bunker Boy’s basement cell.

Nah -- they'll just have to give him some extra therapy for thumb carpel tunnel syndrome. Does Bunker Boy actually do anything else these days except watch TV and tweet?

I'm predicting a SCOTUS punt on the tax returns. Not seeing any of that stuff before the election.

Something like "Congress has a right to see certain things, but Congress has to pass this test to see stuff. So let's send this back to the lower court and have the lower court hold a bunch of new hearings on whether Congress has/has not passed the test."

Can successfully kicked down the road.

P.S. All SCOTUS cases are decided by June 30.

… suspect you are correct. They know it (Trump) is wrong and in my opinion are behaving in a cowardly fashion. But it is the system. The next congress has a lot of clean up to do in regards to the holes in the system Orange Duce has exploited, or been allowed to exploit.

[CU77]

Going to have to nuke the filibuster to get anything done.

[seacoaster]

Nice overview and analysis of the DACA decision yesterday, below. I've noticed a lot of less than correct headlines, and Howe sort of clears up what happened.

http://amylhowe.com/2020/06/18/court-re ... -end-daca/

[6ftstick]

Nice overview and analysis of the DACA decision yesterday, below. I've noticed a lot of less than correct headlines, and Howe sort of clears up what happened.

http://amylhowe.com/2020/06/18/court-re ... -end-daca/

During constant urging to take pen in hand and create an executive order on immigration Barack Obama repeated often "Its unconstitutional. I can't do that."

Then with little else to show for his administration he did it.

Now the SCOTUS extends it. Not ruling on its legitimacy. 5-4

[seacoaster]

Nice overview and analysis of the DACA decision yesterday, below. I've noticed a lot of less than correct headlines, and Howe sort of clears up what happened.

http://amylhowe.com/2020/06/18/court-re ... -end-daca/

During constant urging to take pen in hand and create an executive order on immigration Barack Obama repeated often "Its unconstitutional. I can't do that."

Then with little else to show for his administration he did it.

Now the SCOTUS extends it. Not ruling on its legitimacy. 5-4

Looks like folks opposed to DACA -- say, for example, opposed to brown folks entering the country (or immigrants from Norway, of course) or opposed to the manner in which the legal regime came to be in the first place -- seems like you had a fair shot: the full power of the federal government, the DOJ, appointed lawyers excoriating the basis for DACA, and a court pretty well packed with Judges chosen by GOP Presidents.

The legitimacy of this decision is what it is, 5-4, with the result the one you didn't want. I know how you feel.

[foreverlax]

Nice overview and analysis of the DACA decision yesterday, below. I've noticed a lot of less than correct headlines, and Howe sort of clears up what happened.

http://amylhowe.com/2020/06/18/court-re ... -end-daca/

During constant urging to take pen in hand and create an executive order on immigration Barack Obama repeated often "Its unconstitutional. I can't do that."

Then with little else to show for his administration he did it.

Now the SCOTUS extends it. Not ruling on its legitimacy. 5-4

So why hasn't DOPUS just sign a new EO?

[CU88]

I did listen. Thought CSPN did a nice job, except for when they cut away briefly.

First, to the bottom line. Who wins? Beats me, but I’ll give you my guesses, below. I suspect the Court will issue a mixed-bag ruling. There are actually four cases. Three involve subpoenas by House committees (Oversight, Financial Services, and Intelligence). One involves the Manhattan D.A.

I think the House’s Oversight Committee’s case might be the weakest. They subpoenaed Trump’s records after Michael Cohen testified Trump inflated the value of his assets to apply for loans and deflated them to try to reduce his real estate taxes. Trump says this committee is investigating him and isn’t pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose. I’ll go way out on a limb and predict Trump wins 5-4 or 6-3 (Breyer). It seemed to me that most of the justices were concerned about the potential for Congress to harass the president. At the same time the Court seems to understand the House has a right to legislate. Of the three House cases, this one seems to be the closest to “investigation” as opposed to “legislation.”

The other two House subpoenas seem to have better chances. The House Financial Services Committee subpoenaed records from Trump's banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Also, the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, claiming it was investigating potential leverage that foreign actors may have over Trump, his family, and his businesses. The president's lawyers argue the subpoenas are extraordinarily broad because they seek more than a decade's worth of documents, cover members of his family who have never held public office, and ask for virtually every financial detail the institutions might have about their private affairs.

It seemed to me that there was some sentiment on the Court that these subpoenas could be in furtherance of a legitimate legislative purpose, which is to amend the laws on financial disclosures, conflicts of interest, or bank fraud. The four liberal justices all seem to be disposed to rule against Trump. Alito and Thomas seem to be for Trump. Not sure about Kav (maybe Trump?). Roberts seemed to be clearly looking for a way to balance the competing interests. I assume he’ll favor a balancing test. Not clear how he’ll strike the balance. Surprisingly to me, Gorsuch seemed to be leaning in the House’s favor. Does that signal how he’ll rule? Who knows? My guess is the Court is going to rule that Congress can subpoena the president’s records, but will impose some sort of heightened need standard (one that would address possible harassment), and then remand to the trial court to determine if the standard has been met. And then the trial court’s decision would wend its way back up to the Supreme Court, but not before the election. So let’s say 6-3 (liberals plus the Chief and Gorsuch) for the House.

Giving the House two wins and one loss would send a signal to Congress that you can subpoena the president for legitimate or quasi-legit legislative reasons, but you can't investigate him (absent an impeachment) or harass him. In other words, there are limits on Congress' subpoena power.

In the last case, a NY state grand jury subpoenaed Trump’s records as part of a criminal investigation into the Stormy Daniels payoff. This one seems to be Trump’s weakest case. There seemed to be near unanimous sentiment on the Court favoring grand jury subpoenas to one degree or another. A good bit of discussion seemed to revolve around what standard should be applied to reviewing a state grand jury subpoena directed at a sitting president. The liberals advocated that the same standard used for a regular citizen should apply. Most of the conservatives seemed to push for a “heightened need” standard. I am going to go out on a limb and say the decision will be 9-0 (or maybe 8-1 or 7-2 (Thomas and/or Alito), but that the majority will find a heightened need standard applies. And the Court will remand for the trial court to decide if the standard has been met. Again, the Court would be ducking making a decision before the election. There would be a four liberal justice concurrence saying: (a) the regular standard should apply; and (b) under either standard, the state met its burden.

There was little to no discussion of the “political question” issue applicable to the House cases, which got some publicity a week or two ago when the Court ordered counsel to brief the issue. I’ve read that all sides argued to the Court in their supplemental briefs that the cases should not be dismissed on those grounds. There were comments today at the argument to the effect that the accountants/banks would comply with the subpoenas unless the Supreme Court ruled them to be invalid (which a dismissal on political question grounds wouldn’t do). There was mention that the accountants and banks did not want to run the risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

It seemed to me that some of the liberal justices thought that ruling for the House would likely result in compromises on subpoenas between Congress and presidents in the future, which is pretty much what has occurred in the past. Ruling for Trump, however, will result in full-blown stonewalling by future presidents.

Sekulow abandoned the ridiculous argument that police or prosecutors cannot even investigate a crime committed by a president while he is in office, but did argue a sitting president has full immunity from legal process (in the context of this case, immunity from having his tax returns subpoenaed). His position seems to be squarely inconsistent with the Nixon and Clinton cases. It did not seem that any justice was receptive to this absolute immunity argument. At least there don’t seem to be five votes.

Surprisingly to me, the NY state attorney said he was conceding a state could not indict a sitting president. Perhaps this was a concession he felt he needed to make to help improve his case’s chances of success. He may have felt some of the justices thought he is intending to indict Trump before the election. This concession was very disappointing to me. I don’t think it was one he absolutely had to make. Plus, I think it’s wrong as a matter of law. At least it is an issue the Supreme Court needs to decide, not some back-room DOJ flunkie. Of course, this concession does not bind future state prosecutors, but it clearly puts the kibosh on my prediction that NY would indict Trump this fall. Ain’t gonna happen.

There was some discussion about how the statute of limitations would apply if the president is immune from prosecution. It seems to me this issue also has relevance to whether a sitting president can be indicted. I’m not a criminal law expert, but I thought the SOL was tolled when the indictment was handed down. So in this case, if NY wins and gets the tax returns, why won’t they still have SOL problems if they can’t indict Trump until he leaves office? There was discussion about whether the SOL would be tolled, but while there are decent arguments it should be, the issue is entirely undecided. It is certainly possible that some future court could hold the SOL was not tolled and that any criminal charges against an ex-president are time-barred.

The NY attorney also conceded that federal courts have the power to review state grand jury subpoenas issued to sitting presidents. Yeah, maybe this Supreme Court would include that in an opinion, but I didn’t see the need to make this concession. Again, maybe he did it to try to help his case with this Court.

Most impressive justices to me: Kagan, Gorsuch. Next: Alito. Next: Roberts. Next: Breyer, Sotomayor, Thomas. Least: Ginsburg (though she should be graded on a curve), Kavanaugh.

In terms of the advocates, I thought the House’s was the weakest. The two government attorneys were competent and polished, but otherwise not remarkable. I'd put the first Trump attorney in the same category as the two government counsel. Competent, not flashy. Sekulow was Sekulow. Not too bad. Somewhat similar to what we saw at the impeachment trial, though he dialed back his NY bombast as he should have given the audience. Surprisingly to me, I though the NY state attorney was by far the best advocate today. Was very impressed with him.

There were no toilet flushes.

The only thing I can say for sure is that all of the above predictions will be wrong. Apologies to seacoaster if he heard an entirely different argument.

CU88, these were my thoughts after the oral argument.

Thanks for re-posting to share this.

I am terrible at reading tea leaves and worse at understanding Law, but I wonder if some of the DACA comments indicate how they respond to the 4 tax cases before them now.

'A delicate political issue'

After the ruling was handed down on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent.
The decision is "an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision," Thomas wrote.

Thomas, one of the court's most conservative members, argued in his dissent that "the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law."

"On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case."
Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree with Thomas' assessment, writing that "DACA presents a delicate political issue, but that is not our business."