One of the two cases involving Trump's finances coming down from SCOTUS tomorrow is Trump v. Mazars, the congressional subpoena case. (The other, Trump v. Vance, involves a subpoena from a NY prosecutor.)

This is a thread about Mazars, which is really *three* different cases.

One involves the House Oversight Committee, which wants Trump's financial records from Mazars, his accounting firm, to investigate paramour payoffs thru Michael Cohen, potential emoluments clause violations and the like.

A second involves the House Financial Services Committee, which wants to see records from Trump's banks (Capital One and Deutsche Bank) to investigate money laundering and other financial crimes.

The third involves the House Intelligence Committee, which also seeks records from Capital One and Deutsche Bank to look into “whether foreign actors have financial leverage over President Trump" & whether new laws or shored-up intelligence are necessary to combat the threat.

Some of these subpoenas may have a more pressing justification than others: a more "substantial legislative purpose," as one version of the test goes.

Justice Sotomayor suggested in the oral argument, for example, that the Intelligence subpoenas may be the most unassailable:

So when Mazars arrives, we may see a splintered decision with regard to the various subpoenas. Majorities may conclude, e.g., that the Oversight & Financial Services committees overreached but that the Intelligence committee subpoenas are enforceable. END

p.s. SCOTUS has an off-ramp from deciding whether these subpoenas are enforceable: lay out a standard for an acceptable congressional subpoena (a "conceivable", "substantial", or "compelling" legislative purpose, eg) & ask the lower courts to re-evaluate under that standard.

That off ramp is called a "remand" and SCOTUS does it all the time.

If it does so now, it's essentially a gift to Trump as it means the subpoenas will not be enforced for months, at least, and he'll get to keep his docs secret until after the election.

But that would be some EXTREMELY WEAK TEA. Under ANY test SCOTUS could come up with, it's VERY hard to argue that the Intelligence Committee subpoenas are not up to par. What could be more compelling than protecting the country from foreign interference in the electoral process?