Rule of Law

President Trump’s defeat may give Supreme Court a rest from personal, policy lawsuits

WASHINGTON – From the earliest days of his travel ban against predominantly Muslim countries to his latest efforts at reversing the results of the 2020 election, President Donald Trump has dominated much of the Supreme Court’s docket.

Even in the autumn of his presidency, little has changed. The administration came before the justices the week after Election Day in hopes of dismantling the Affordable Care Act, perhaps the most celebrated achievement of his predecessor. Later this month, it will defend its plan to exclude noncitizens from the census count used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives.

The list of Trump-related cases heading the high court’s way remains long even as the president’s days grow short. He wants a rematch with New York City prosecutors seeking access to his tax returns and financial records. He wants to continue building  the wall along the southern border while keeping migrants seeking asylum on the Mexican side.

But all that could change after Jan. 20, when President-elect Joe Biden takes office. Many of the cases tied to Trump’s policies and personal entanglements are likely to become moot or, at least, undeserving of the Supreme Court’s time and attention.

“I think that the president has tested the boundaries of what was expected in ways that have generated a lot of litigation,” said Ian Gershengorn, who was the Justice Department’s acting solicitor general during the waning days of the Obama administration. “I would just think the court would want to take a deep breath.”

The justices appear to be doing just that. For the past month, they have been sitting on a petition from Trump’s lawyers that seeks to block the New York subpoena for his tax and financial documents. For two weeks, they have left unanswered his lawyers’ request to intervene in Pennsylvania Republicans’ effort to disallow absentee ballots received for three days after Election Day.

And in the latest sign of the upcoming political transition, the House Judiciary Committee asked the high court Tuesday to postpone the Dec. 2 oral argument in its battle to gain access to grand jury information that was redacted from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The court recently agreed to hear the Justice Department’s defense of Trump’s border wall and asylum policies, which are among a bevy of immigration crackdowns challenged by immigrant rights groups. But neither case has been set for oral argument yet, leaving time for the incoming Biden administration to change the policies.

More:President Trump’s immigration crackdown inundates Supreme Court

Several other immigration cases are headed to the high court, including the Trump administration’s defense of its policy denying residency and green cards to some legal immigrants who rely on public benefits. In many of the cases, policies implemented by one president can be reversed by the next without requiring action by Congress – or intervention by the nation’s highest court.

“It underscores that elections have consequences, especially when more and more of our most important federal policies are made through executive action,” said Stephen Vladeck, who specializes in national security law at the University of Texas School of Law.

Taxes and tweets

What makes Trump’s legal battles particularly unusual compared with those of past presidents is the number of cases affecting him personally. Both Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance and New York Attorney General Letitia James are seeking his financial records for signs of hush-money payments or tax fraud. Lawsuits in New York and Washington, D.C., target the president’s business dealings with foreign and domestic governments.

Trump even has been sued by followers of his Twitter account who contend the president blocked them in an effort to “suppress dissent.” The Justice Department’s request that the high court review two lower-court rulings against him has been pending for several weeks.

While federal district and circuit courts have rejected most of Trump’s arguments in cases seeking access to his financial records and some redacted parts of the Mueller report, appeals by the Justice Department or his personal lawyers have let him run out the clock and prevent disclosure while in office, said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. If the cases remain live, Trump will be a private citizen, and disputes related to his status as president will be moot.

Since Day One, Trump has operated as president in much the same way he did as a luxury developer and reality TV host: by suing those who get in his way. If imitation is flattery, he has been rewarded by his many challengers.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
November 23, 2020

Congress Has Every Right to Keep Investigating Trump After He’s Gone

Slate
On Friday, the Supreme Court postponed oral arguments over a House request to obtain the...
By: Ashwin Phatak
Rule of Law
November 18, 2020

Trump’s Bank Watchdog Pick to Get Senate Action, Crapo Says

Bloomberg Politics
U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo said he would seek to quickly schedule a...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Erik Wasson and Jesse Hamilton
Rule of Law
November 13, 2020

Supreme Court goes idle on Trump-related disputes and time is running out

The Washington Post
Has the Supreme Court hit the pause button on all things President Trump? The justices...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Robert Barnes
Rule of Law
November 11, 2020

The GSA Is Threatening the Stability of Our Democracy

The 2020 presidential election is now behind us, and the American people have selected Joe...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Becca Damante
Rule of Law
November 6, 2020

How Biden Can Staff the Executive Branch in the Face of Republican Obstruction

We won’t know the final makeup of the Senate until early next year, but already...
By: Becca Damante, Brianne J. Gorod
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Don’t Shoot Portland v. Wolf

In Don’t Shoot Portland v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is considering a challenge to actions taken by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to quell peaceful demonstrations in Portland,...