In the News

SPRINGFIELD — U.S. Rep. Richard Neal said Thursday that he, and by extension the American people, are one large step closer to seeing President Donald Trump’s closely guarded tax records following rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court sent House subpoenas for the records back to lower courts for further rulings. But it upheld the Manhattan district attorney’s demand for Trump’s tax returns in a separate case.

In doing so, the majority of justices— including those appointed by Trump himself — upheld the concept of separation of powers.

"It is the law," Neal said. "It is not subject to compromise."

As chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Neal is one of three lawmakers allowed to request the president’s taxes under chapter 6103 of the federal tax code. The others are the chairs of the Senate Finance Committee and the Joint Tax Committee.

Neal has moved slowly on the taxes case and made few public statements about it, taking criticism from fellow Democrats who wanted him to be more aggressive. He filed his request for Trump’s taxes with the IRS in April 2019, and correctly predicted the matter would end up in the Supreme Court.

“I think what the court said today is consistent with what we have said repeatedly, in that a methodical approach through the courts is the path we should travel,” Neal said Thursday outside the federal courthouse in Springfield, where he has an office. “Clearly the Supreme Court and Justice Roberts has affirmed our position.”

The majority opinions, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected arguments from Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department that the president is immune from investigation while he holds office, or that a prosecutor must show a greater need to obtain the tax records than they would have to show normally.

Trump during his 2016 campaign didn’t release his taxes, breaking with tradition followed by every other president since Richard Nixon. Advocates say making Trump’s tax records public would shed light on his business dealings and reveal possible conflicts of interest.

“We have made our point that 6103 is the law,” Neal said. “This is not about a seminar or a debating society. This is about the law.”

The law itself dates back to President Warren Harding in the 1920s and a financial scandal of that era.

Jennifer L. Levi, professor of law at Western New England University, said episode highlights the courts as a check on presidential power.

“The court made it really clear,” Levi said. “The precedent is really strong in requiring the president to comply with the rule of law.”

The arguments over presidential authority and compliance with the justice system are as old as the Republic, dating back to fights between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, and more recently between President Bill Clinton and Paula Jones, who sued him for sexual harassment.

Thursday’s rulings were both 7-2, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting. Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted with the majority and against the president.

The rulings, predictably, set off a storm of angry Twitter responses from Trump.

“Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!” Trump wrote.

Neal said Trump’s reaction backs up the Democrats’ legal position, and the need for oversight.

“If I might say, the president’s petulance because he happened to have appointed Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh — that they were supposed to do what he says? Repeatedly in the three and half years he’s been president he’s misunderstood the role of the attorney general, who is not his personal attorney, and he’s misunderstood the role of the independent judiciary,” Neal said.

There is no timeline as to when a lower court might order the IRS to comply with the House subpoenas for Trump’s tax files. Neal said he will continue to pursue the case even if Joe Biden is elected president.

Levi said Trump’s opponents would like the documents to be made public before the November election, but Neal said it’s up to the courts.

“The challenge we’ve always had here is that the court moves in its own deliberate pace,” Neal said.