U.S. Supreme Court wary of presidential 'harassment' in Trump finances fight

JAY SEKULOW: "The presidency is being harassed and undermined with improper process."

Lawyers representing President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out several subpoenas seeking the president's past financial records, arguing by teleconference that the records cannot be handed over because of his authority as president.

SEKULOW: "The Constitution does not allow it."

But while the nine justices appeared divided over two cases involving Democratic-led congressional subpoenas, many of them seemed more sympathetic to a third case brought by New York City's District Attorney to get private records for an investigation into the Trump Organization.

The justices pressed Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow on why he thought the president should be immune from the criminal probe, with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan saying that where Trump's personal records are concerned "the president is just a man."

SOTOMAYOR: "Counsel, it seems that you're asking for a broadness of immunity that Justice Thomas pointed out is nowhere in the Constitution... I am not sure why he's entitled to more immunity for private acts than he should be for public acts."

SEKULOW: "Well, he's the president of United States. He is a branch of the federal government."

SOTOMAYOR: "We only give judicial officers and congressional officers immunity for acts within their official capacity. You're asking for a broader immunity than anyone else gets.

SEKULOW: "Well, we're..."

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: "You have time for a brief answer, counsel."

SEKULOW: "I will. We're asking for temporary presidential immunity. I would point out that under New York state law, witnesses before a grand jury are not sworn to secrecy. They can state that they testified and what the nature of their testimony was. I'd also like to point out that there are hundreds of members of the United States Congress and a hundred members of the United States State Senate. There is one president."

ROBERTS: "Justice Kagan?"

KAGAN: "So, Mr. Sekulow, you've said that a number of times and made the point, which we have made, that presidents cannot be treated just like an ordinary citizen. But it's also true and, indeed, a fundamental precept of our constitutional order that a president isn't above the law."

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also challenged the assertion that a grand jury's subpoena cannot be enforced against a sitting president.

ALITO: "Aren't there at least some circumstances in which the U.S. Constitution would permit a local prosecutor to subpoena records containing information about a sitting president?"

Even conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, questioned why the court would give Trump immunity in a criminal investigation when it did not give Democratic former President Bill Clinton immunity in a sexual harassment lawsuit in the 1990s.

He also appeared to be hesitant about second-guessing Congress' motives for investigating Trump.

GORSUCH: "Why should we not defer to the House's views on its own legislative purposes?"

But several justices also pressed a lawyer for the House of Representatives to explain why the subpoenas were not simply presidential harassment and whether Congress should be limited in issuing subpoenas so as to not frustrate the carrying out of the president's official duties.

Trump's tax returns and financial records have remained an enduring mystery throughout his presidency.

I wasn't totally clear how the Supreme Court might rule in the next few weeks.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority including two justices appointed by Trump.

Lower courts in Washington and New York ruled against Trump in all three cases involving his financial records.