Updated at 1:45 p.m.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law that would have required President Donald Trump, and other presidential and gubernatorial candidates, to disclose income taxes to appear on the primary election ballot.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the court held that while "the Legislature may well be correct" that a candidate's income taxes could provide voters with useful information "it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a 'recognized candidate' … to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box."

The ruling deals what could be a fatal blow to California Democrats' attempts to force the president to reveal his financial interests. In a related federal case challenging the California law, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. of the Eastern District of California last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The state's appeal of that ruling is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has said he needs a final answer on whether to seek Trump's taxes by the end of the month in order to meet printing deadlines for the March primary.

"Today's ruling is a victory for every California voter," California Republican Party chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson, a plaintiff in the state case, said in a statement. "This unanimous decision solidifies the California State Constitutional provisions to place candidates on the ballot, and the important fact that the legislature may not place additional restrictions on those requirements."

Padilla said in a statement Thursday: "At this particular moment in our nation's history, improving the disclosure of political candidates' economic interests is one of the best ways to improve public faith in our government. While we are disappointed in today's ruling, the movement for greater transparency will endure. The history of our democracy is on the side of more transparency, not less."

Attorneys for the state had argued that the constitution gives the Legislature broad authority to set requirements for candidates to qualify for the ballot. But justices were troubled by the precedent such an interpretation could set—for instance, whether lawmakers could also seek high school transcripts or medical records.

The tax disclosure law conflicts with state constitution language directing the secretary of state to place all "recognized" presidential candidates on the ballot, Cantil-Sakauye wrote.

"There is no indication that the Secretary of State has traditionally construed article II, section 5(c) or its predecessor provisions as contemplating additional requirements for appearing on a presidential primary ballot," the chief justice continued.

California's law, which would have required five years of a candidate's tax return, does not mention Trump by name. But legislative Democrats clearly targeted the president, who has refused to make public his returns despite telling would-be voters in 2016 and beyond that he would "absolutely" release them. Trump said he could not release his tax returns because of an alleged IRS audit.

"These are extraordinary times, and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence," Newsom said in a signing statement this summer. "The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing or influence from domestic and foreign business interest."

Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, California Supreme Court

In a brief concurring opinion, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar called Thursday's ruling narrow and noted that for decades most presidential candidates have willingly disclosed their tax returns. Trump was the first president in modern times to refuse to release his returns.

"As Thomas Jefferson cautioned in the first years after independence, "[t]he time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten their hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered'" Cuéllar wrote. "The force of that warning remains undiluted by today's decision."

Several cases in federal courts in Washington and New York could compel the president to release his tax returns. U.S. House Democrats and others, including the Manhattan district attorneys, have sued to obtain those records.

Read the opinion below in Patterson v. Padilla:

|

Read more: