最高法院确认总统可以被传唤，但这会影响选举吗？
在7月9日星期四的两项裁决中，最高法院确保，在大多数情况下，总统仍然要履行约束其公民同胞的“公共义务”。
ren<s:1> DeAnda在Unsplash上拍摄
最高法院确认总统可以被传唤，但这会影响选举吗？
在7月9日星期四的两项裁决中，最高法院确保，在大多数情况下，总统仍然要履行约束其公民同胞的“公共义务”。
In “新濠影汇赌场党人文集69号，” Alexander Hamilton defended the proposed presidency by advising that unlike a king, the “President of the United States … would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace.” 在周四的两项裁决中，最高法院粉碎了现任总统的君主制，并确保在大多数情况下，总统仍然要履行约束其同胞的“公共义务”。 这些决定的实际效果是否会导致特朗普总统的“个人惩罚和耻辱”，可能取决于这些案件在未来几个月和几年的进展情况。
In March, my BU Law colleague Professor 肖恩kea and I 提交了法庭之友简报 in both “tax return” cases decided by the Supreme Court this week. 这些案件涉及三种不同的诉讼。 In 万斯 (named after the Manhattan state prosecutor), Trump challenged subpoenas issued to an accounting firm in connection with a criminal grand jury investigation that is presumably looking at whether the Trump Organization, and related companies and individuals, committed state law crimes. 由于传票发给了为总统和他拥有的公司处理工作的会计师事务所，传票将导致向检察官披露与特朗普有关的纳税申报表信息，并可能在未来的刑事诉讼中公开披露。 The 玛扎尔 case (named after the accounting firm) is two cases, one involving congressional committee subpoenas to the accountants and the other 与传唤德意志银行有关 (well known to be the primary lender to many Trump-related companies).
在这两起案件中，最高法院都以7比2的多数否决了总统律师提出的主要论点，其中包括由特朗普总统任命的卡瓦诺和戈萨奇法官。 总统立即在推特上宣布，这些不平衡的损失及其影响是“政治腐败”、“政治迫害”、“不公平”，是对总统前所未有的不尊重。 不出所料，这些描述忽略了最高法院的实际说法。
政治迫害！
——唐纳德·特朗普（@realDonaldTrump） 2020年7月9日
To be honest, the Court went further than either Professor Kealy or I expected. In our briefs, we proposed different approaches to the cases that would have achieved largely the same results. I focused on the fact that the subpoenas included the more than 500 Trump-affiliated companies, and that because those companies were separate legal entities that are the actual owners of the subpoenaed records, most of the records don’t even belong to the president. The Court glossed over that issue with a footnote, but it’s bad precedent to allow a company’s owners to pretend they can claim rights belonging only to the companies themselves. That issue will continue to arise in other contexts, when individuals claim the liability benefits of forming “separate” corporations and LLCs while pretending that those companies are their alter ego when “separateness” becomes inconvenient.
基利教授提出了一个微妙的四部分测试，他敦促法院在审查国会传票的可执行性时考虑这个测试。 In 玛扎尔, the chief justice did set out a new four-part test, but in a different formulation than the proposal in our brief. 然而，在这两种情况下，最高法院的裁决都让在任总统受到了州大陪审团和国会传票的约束，这些结果是我们几近崩溃的制衡制度的胜利，即使他们不太可能实现一些人所希望的2020年政治结果。
特朗普总统的律师在这两个案件中都提出了极端的论点。 In 万斯, they took the position not only that the president cannot be prosecuted for a state crime while in office (literally, the “第五大道”的论点), but that neither he nor anyone close to him (companies, family members, officers and employees of the Trump companies) could be the subject of a grand jury investigation or subpoena. The chief justice provided a devastating historical critique of the Trump position, noting that Thomas Jefferson acceded to the subpoena power more than 200 years ago during 艾伦·伯尔的叛国罪审判 and outlining subsequent voluntary or enforced cooperation by presidents in more than 200 years since. 他驳斥了特朗普豁免主张的所有理由：总统偏离了职责，未决调查带来的耻辱，以及现任总统受到骚扰的风险。 In fact, because the 万斯 case involved no official presidential papers or executive privilege arguments, the decision refused to impose a requirement that state-generated subpoenas meet some higher standard of “need.” The Court upheld the lower court decisions in 万斯, meaning that the stay the parties agreed to last year pending a Supreme Court resolution has now expired, and District Attorney 万斯 may commence to enforce his subpoena against 玛扎尔, the accounting firm.
In both cases, the Court’s decision left sitting presidents subject to both state grand jury and congressional subpoenas, and those outcomes are victories for our nearly broken system of checks-and-balances …
In 玛扎尔, the president’s weakest arguments were also rejected. 该意见书分析了国会立法权的广度。 国会本身没有执法权力，特朗普的一个论点是，众议院没有权力要求提供文件，即使这些文件与潜在的立法（关于选举干预、金融犯罪等）有关，因为任何不当行为都只能通过弹劾或总统卸任后的刑事诉讼来惩罚。 然而，首席大法官保留了众议院要求提供与立法需要有关的文件的权力。 最高法院将案件发回下级法院审议众议院委员会的传票，以反对一项新的测试，该测试旨在尊重三权分立，同时保留国会识别、调查、提出和通过所需立法的能力。 这些测试将要求法院做出基于需要的评估，这将影响到传唤总统记录的范围，并要求国会证明这种需要是合理的，但不会像总统所倡导的那样削弱立法机构。 玛扎尔 is a victory for Congress when it comes to checking presidential power—for the first time, the Court has given it express permission to subpoena a president’s personal records.
现在发生了什么？ Those who anticipated reading Trump’s tax returns with voyeuristic thrill will be disappointed, and perhaps nothing will happen before November 3 that will move an already a polarized and intransigent electorate. In the New York proceeding governed by 万斯, the already-expired stay may result in documents being produced to prosecutors and the grand jury, but grand jury proceedings are secret (and protected under criminal law), so nothing in those documents should become public unless and until indictments are announced. Those indictments may or may not target the president, but it is important to note that any indictment of him could be unsealed as soon as January 20, and that the presidential pardon power does not apply to state crimes.
In the 玛扎尔 case, the congressional committees will presumably offer to narrow their subpoenas to fit within the new test, and adopt public proclamations of purpose and need that justify their enforcement. However, given the proximity of the election and the increasing unlikelihood that control of the House will change in January, House leaders may slow walk the congressional follow up, knowing that in January they could issue new subpoenas, and that the new 玛扎尔 test won’t even apply if there is then a new president. 汉密尔顿的“惩罚和耻辱”仍然在地平线上。
“法律评论”是一个评论系列，提供来自波士顿大学法律系对各种法律问题的评论。 所表达的观点仅代表作者的观点，并不代表波士顿大学法学院的观点。
