The first case that we will argue stay is down from versus the usa. Mr. Chief justice, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. No court hadcases, ever upheld the use of Congress Passed subpoena power. Had toittee of congress the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas
God save the United States and this honorable court. Chief Justice Roberts the first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump v. Mazars usa. Mr. Strawbridge . Mr. Strawbridge before these cases, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the use of congres subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president , and no one had tried with a broad swath of the president s personal let alone purpose of a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the First Time Congress has attempted such a gambit. Because congress has subpoena power, it is subordinate, and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or particular compelling showing of need. They show neither here. Satisfied, butas thoseguments would limit meaningless. For example, as long as they could tack on a potential for broad legislation. They claim c
To President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States give their attention, god save the United States and this honorable court. The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding traditi
Congress has the authority to subpoena thirdparty companies for access to President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. For access to President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States give their attention, god save the United States and this honorable court. The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subp
The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need, the committee can satisfy neither condition here and that should decide this case. The committees contend of the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has applied to congressional subpoenas. But their arguments would render those limits meaningless