Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Douglas Letter, general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday sidestepping the disclosure of President Donald Trump's tax records to Congress doesn't bode well for lawmakers' chances of getting the documents ahead of the November election, but it does offer a number of clues for other congressional lawsuits involving Trump and his administration.

The court's majority opinions in the Trump tax records cases, both authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, weigh in on a number of legal issues that have permeated the pending cases between the House and Trump, many of which center around congressional subpoenas.

One opinion directly addressed the House's subpoenas to third parties for a president's private records, which Roberts noted was the first time the court had taken up the issue, but offered hints on the separations of powers concerns raised by separate legal fights between the House and executive branch. The other, on a state subpoena for Trump's records, touched upon "absolute immunity" claims the president raised in other cases.

Here's what the Trump tax opinions said about the issues that run through the legal clashes with the House, and what it could mean for the pending lawsuits.

Limits on Congressional Subpoenas

Roberts, in the majority opinion on the subpoenas to Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, laid out a four-part test on how courts should consider congressional subpoenas to third parties. In the opinion, which all four of the court's liberal justices joined, the chief justice rejected the House's claim that the dispute should be treated like any other subpoena case.

He described the four criteria courts should factor into considering cases challenging such subpoenas: "whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the president and his papers"; the "nature of the evidence" cited by Congress "to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose"; whether the subpoenas are "no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress's legislative objective"; and "the burdens imposed on the president by a subpoena."

At the same time, the justices rejected Trump and the Justice Department's assertion that the subpoenas should have to meet the standard the court set in the fight over Nixon's secret Oval Office recordings, meaning the House would have to show a "demonstrated, specific need" for the records.

"We decline to transplant that protection root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive executive branch deliberations," Roberts wrote.

Most of the other House subpoena fights with Trump are over subpoenas issued to his administration, which raise different legal issues than these third-party subpoenas. However, DOJ attorneys are certain to cite these newly created limiting principles in arguing those cases in the future.

Separation of Powers

Roberts wrote in the Mazars opinion that fights between Congress and the president over documents are typically not resolved in court, but instead through "the 'hurly-burly, the give-and-take of the political process between the legislative and the executive,'" quoting congressional testimony from the late Justice Antonin Scalia. He wrote that means the court must give great weight to that prior history, in a fight he said inherently involves the executive branch.

And he and other justices rejected the House's claims that these subpoenas to third parties did not implicate separation of powers concerns. "We would have to be 'blind' not to see what '[a]ll others can see and understand': that the subpoenas do not represent a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved," Roberts wrote.

The court's majority opinion also lays out concerns about "limitless subpoenas," saying "Congress could 'exert an imperious controul' over the executive branch and aggrandize itself at the president's expense, just as the Framers feared." 

"And a limitless subpoena power would transform the 'established practice' of the political branches. Instead of negotiating over information requests, Congress could simply walk away from the bargaining table and compel compliance in court," Roberts continued.

Both of these lawsuits were brought by the president himself, and in his private capacity, shifting the dynamics through which the justices examined the case. But Roberts' acknowledgement of the importance of negotiations between the two branches begs the question: What would the justices say if the administration is the one refusing to negotiate?

The House has argued in other lawsuits, including that for former White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony and for grand jury information redacted from Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's report, that it had to sue because of stonewalling by the administration.

And by creating a test based on separation of powers that relies on the president's official position, the justices may have given the House more ground to argue for its ability to sue the administration—a legal question that has dominated other House lawsuits, including that for McGahn's testimony and the diversion of appropriated funds for border wall construction. 

"Given the close connection between the office of the president and its occupant, congressional demands for the president's papers can implicate the relationship between the branches regardless whether those papers are personal or official," Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the Mueller grand jury case already, presenting the justices the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is also set to hand down a ruling on McGahn, which is all but certain to cite Thursday's opinion.

Absolute Immunity

The justices, in Trump v. Vance, unanimously rejected the notion that Trump is "absolutely immune" from subpoenas issued by state prosecutors while he is in office. 

A similar argument has been raised in the lawsuit over the subpoena for McGahn's testimony, as Justice Department lawyers argue he is protected by his status as one of the president's closest advisers. The biggest difference between the case is obvious: McGahn, as a former member of the administration, would speak about "official" and not "private" information, an important distinction Roberts raised in both Mazars and Vance.

Trump's attorneys have not raised claims of executive privilege in the McGahn case as they have in ordering the shielding of other official records, like those on the failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

"That privilege safeguards the public interest in candid, confidential deliberations within the executive branch; it is 'fundamental to the operation of government,'" Roberts wrote in the Mazars opinion. "As a result, information subject to executive privilege deserves 'the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice.'"

More closely connected to this "immunity" argument is a lawsuit brought forward by the attorneys general of Maryland and D.C., alleging Trump is violating the emoluments clause by continuing to profit from his hotel in Washington, D.C., while in office. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected similar immunity claims in ruling that the case could move forward to discovery. The Justice Department has since said it would appeal that ruling.

The emoluments lawsuit is a civil case, not a criminal matter, and it's playing out in federal court, not a state one. But Thursday's finding that state prosecutors have the power to issue subpoenas against sitting presidents arguably weakens Trump's arguments in that case, particularly as the court reaffirmed its finding in Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president can face claims over private conduct.

"Just as a 'properly managed' civil suit is generally 'unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of' a president's time or attention, two centuries of experience confirm that a properly tailored criminal subpoena will not normally hamper the performance of the president's constitutional duties," Roberts wrote Thursday.

Read more:

Justices Rule for Trump in House Subpoena Case, But President Can't Shield Records from NY Grand Jury

'Balanced Approach': How Roberts Marshaled Near Unanimity in Trump Records Cases

Key Quotes: What the Justices Said About Demands for Trump's Financial Records