Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

More twists in multilevel fight by the House to get Trump's tax returns

President Donald Trump

President Trump is fighting multiple battles to prevent access to his tax returns

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The House of Representatives is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by President Trump seeking to prevent the House's majority Democrats from getting their hands on the president's New York tax returns.

The request by the House late Monday is the latest volley in what's arguably, besides impeachment, the most consequential current balance-of-powers fight between the legislative and executive branches.


Acting as a private citizen, Trump filed the suit in July in federal court, looking to shortcut any effort by the House Ways and Means Committee to use a freshly enacted New York law to obtain the state returns.

Earlier this month in a separate case, a federal judge dismissed Trump's effort to prevent the president's state returns from being turned over to a New York grand jury. Trump's efforts to get that ruling reversed will be argued Wednesday before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. No matter the outcome, the dispute is almost surely headed to the Supreme Court.

Presidential candidates and presidents have traditionally revealed their tax returns in the name of transparency, but Trump has refused to release his. Proposals to mandate that presidential nominees release their federal 1040s have become a standard part of democracy reform proposals. Such a requirement was included in HR 1, the comprehensive government reform bill passed by the House along party lines in March.

The House's lawyers argued in their filing Monday that Trump's claim should be dismissed because the Ways and Means Committee has not yet asked for the president's New York returns and has not decided whether it will.

"Mr. Trump does not and cannot allege that he is suffering harm," the dismissal request states.

The House lawyers also argue that any president is banned by the Constitution from interfering in the affairs of another, co-equal branch of government.

In filing the suit against the House, Trump's attorneys argued that waiting until a request for the tax returns is made could be too late — they could be disclosed before the president had a chance to be heard in court.

While keeping its options with New York open, the Ways and Means panel has focused more intently on getting access to six years of Trump's tax returns directly from the IRS and its parent, the Treasury Department. Democrats say the committee has a clear right to see Trump's filings under a seldom-invoked section of the tax code that says Treasury "shall furnish" the committee with "any" tax information it seeks about any American citizen.

Administration officials rebuffed a subpoena for those returns this spring, saying they would not help the Democrats with a fishing expedition that lacked a legitimate policy making purpose. The House has now gone to federal court on that matter, as well, arguing the law gives the House total leeway to decide what it needs and why


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less