The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Manhattan prosecutors can obtain President Trump’s financial records — and punted House Democrats’ efforts to access similar records to a lower court.

Why it matters: The Manhattan ruling, a 7-2 decision, is a stinging loss for Trump, who has fought relentlessly to keep these records secret.

The state of play: The public likely won’t see Trump’s tax returns any time soon, because they’ve been subpoenaed as part of a secret grand jury process in New York.

• And the court’s 7-2 punt of House Democrats’ subpoena means that they won’t get their hands on any of Trump’s financial records ahead of the November election — if at all.

What they’re saying: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance called the ruling “a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law.”

• Trump tweeted soon after the rulings came down: “This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration! … Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference.’ BUT NOT ME!”

The backdrop: The court considered cases regarding two separate subpoenas to obtain Trump’s financial records — all part of a larger, tangled web of efforts seeking their release.

• Vance subpoenaed 8 years’ worth of the president’s tax returns as part of an investigation into hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.
• House Democrats sought Trump’s financial documents in part to help inform future legislation about foreign election interference, presidential disclosures or money laundering.

Between the lines: Vance’s office was far more effective during oral arguments last month than the House’s lawyer, whose appearance may have done his case real harm.

• The court seemed more receptive to Vance’s subpoena, as prosecutors are clearly allowed to conduct law enforcement.
• The House’s lawyer failed to define some limits on Congress’ subpoena power, as the justices seemed to want to ensure congressional investigations wouldn’t be used to harass future presidents.

Supreme Court Rules Eastern Oklahoma Land Is Tribal Territory

n a stunning blow to Oklahoma’s state government, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that much of eastern Oklahoma is located on an Indian reservation.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices declared that Congress never diminished or disestablished the land as a reservation. Major crimes committed by a tribal member on their own reservation, in effect, must be prosecuted by the federal government in accordance with the Major Crimes Act.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

“While there can be no question that Congress established a reservation for the Creek Nation, it’s equally clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of its promises to the Tribe,” he wrote. “Not least, the land described in the parties’ treaties, once undivided and held by the Tribe, is now fractured into pieces.”

The ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma could have major implications for the long-running dispute over who has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes by enrolled tribal members on tribal land, as well as what constitutes tribal land. The state of Oklahoma and tribes in the state have been waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the matter for years.

The Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole and Chickasaw Nations — which make up the Five Civilized Tribes — were hoping for a ruling that would uphold their sovereignty and the status of their lands as reservations, which currently make up around 19 million acres and nearly the entire eastern half of Oklahoma.

The court punted on the matter last year when it failed to come to a decision in Sharp v. Murphy. That case involved Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who is on death row for murder. The court sought to establish whether land within the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation in eastern Oklahoma, formerly known as Indian Territory, could still be considered an Indian reservation. But the court failed to settle the case, with only eight justices participating in the deliberations. Gorsuch recused himself because of his involvement in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on the matter previously.

With its ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court sided with that appeals court by ruling that the Creek Nation’s reservation was never disestablished and remains Indian country.