大象传媒

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term Thursday with two long-awaited decisions on who, if anyone, would get to see President Trump鈥檚 financial records and tax returns. The decisions struck a decisive blow in favor of the rule of law over unlimited executive power鈥攁 critical issue in 2020.

But that, unfortunately, doesn鈥檛 mean we鈥檙e going to see Trump鈥檚 taxes any time soon. This means that the public has to wait and trust the legal system to do its work鈥攁t a time when the administration has been working its hardest to corrupt the government institutions.

The good news is that one of the legal cases that鈥檚 unfolding right now as the subject of one Supreme Court case involves a state government. In a case led by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., over whom Trump and his loyalist Attorney General William Barr have no legal power, Trump鈥檚 financial documents will be turned over to a state grand jury for criminal investigation.

on Trump鈥檚 accounts, and Capital One also is now required to hand over documents. They are two of the few major banks that have done business with Trump for more than a decade.

The larger takeaway from these cases is that no one is truly above the law.

Deutsche Bank in particular is under fire, having been credibly 鈥攚颈迟丑 for a lot of that money鈥攁nd was recently . (That Epstein died by suicide in federal prison before he could stand trial raises many concerns about the safety of Epstein鈥檚 partner . This may seem like a digression, but given all we鈥檝e learned about Trump and his inner circle so far, these cases could very well be connected.)

The Supreme Court decision, , was decided by a 7-2 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the four liberal justices in the court鈥檚 opinion, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a separate but concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision indicated that Trump could continue to raise constitutional challenges specific to individual subpoenas, and it鈥檚 not a stretch to think he will. The administration has shown all the signs of trying to stretch out legal proceedings as long as possible, so that no one will learn anything before the next election. The Supreme Court instead has ruled out any blanket immunity from oversight.

鈥淭wo hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,鈥� Roberts wrote in the court鈥檚 majority opinion. 鈥淲e reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.鈥�

The other major case decided Thursday, , though also with a 7-2 majority, with Alito and Thomas dissenting, was more of a mixed bag. Here, several congressional committees had subpoenaed Trump鈥檚 tax returns and financial records, and the law had appeared to be on their side.

Getting more transparency in government, however, is going to take longer

While (26 USC 搂6103), there鈥檚 an exception to the law that authorizes those congressional committees with jurisdiction over federal taxes to acquire federal tax return information of anyone. Congress passed the law to limit the president鈥檚 ability to improperly use private tax information, as then-.

The difference here was that these were the taxes of not just anyone, but the president of the United States. And it鈥檚 not the fact that his returns are necessarily out of reach, but that Congress has to go the extra step to show it鈥檚 not violating the separation of powers in the Constitution.

鈥淭he courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President鈥檚 information,鈥� Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

In other words, Congress didn鈥檛 do it right. Go back and do it again.

The Supreme Court vacated the rulings of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Second Circuit and remanded this case back to the lower courts.

But unless those lower courts decide to expedite these cases, Congress is unlikely to get a look at Trump鈥檚 tax returns before the November election.

Both decisions were drawn from the same three precedents: United States v. Burr (1807), which showed presidents may be subpoenaed during a federal preceding; United States v. Nixon (1974), which held a federal prosecutor could obtain information from a president despite assertions of executive privilege; and Clinton v. Jones (1997), which held that a private individual could sue a sitting president in federal court and compel discovery of evidence.

The larger takeaway from these cases is that, despite everything Trump has tried to do since 2016 to convert his office into the beginning of a royal dynasty, no one is truly above the law. This is one small victory, but it has the imprimatur of having the Supreme Court鈥檚 blessing, and therefore the power of precedent.

Getting more transparency in government, however, is going to take longer and will likely play out after the next election.

The next president also will likely be appointing some new Supreme Court justices. Two of the sitting liberal Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are older than 80. There have been rumors Clarence Thomas is considering retirement (), and . Roberts, a staunch conservative by any other measure, has become the critical swing vote in institutional cases鈥攈e at least seems to care that the Supreme Court not become a partisan body.

Another Trump term will almost certainly mean that the high court will become locked into hardline conservatism for decades to come.

Given what we鈥檝e seen over the past three-and-a-half years, with the rule of law and public accountability under near daily assault by the Trump administration and the Republican Party marching in lockstep behind him, the election may be our last shot to not just to take back the country, but to remain a democracy at all.

These most recent cases just raised the stakes for the 2020 general election, when the future of the United States is on the ballot.