As already posted, more like a punt then a ruling.
Here is Sundance's Breakdown.
♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over. As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”
This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.
-----------
♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement. This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.
We anticipated this ruling in the Trump -v- Mazars case because it was clear the efforts of the House were fishing expeditions. Despite initiating an impeachment effort in order to bolster their attempt; and then attempting to backdoor the congressional subpoenas under the guise of the impeachment effort; the Supreme Court rejected that approach.
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-punts-on-trump-financial-records-cases/ All-in-All, it was a win for President Trump although not a battle ending victory.
