[ad_1]
In a ruling Thursday, US District Court Judge Morrison England, Jr., said that California cannot force candidates to disclose their tax returns as outlined in a new state law. England said he would make his final ruling on the law before October 1.
While the law in question covers all presidential candidates, those in court Thursday acknowledged it was all aimed at one person.
“The elephant in the room is President Trump’s tax returns,” England said.
“It has taken us an hour and a half, but we have finally come around why we are here for all of this, because President Trump did not disclose his taxes,” England said during the hearing.
A lawyer for the state of California, Peter Chang, argued the law was valid because it applies to all candidates.
“Trump spawned this when he broke 50 years of tradition” by not releasing them, Chang said.
But a lawyer for Trump, Thomas McCarthy, countered that the law “handicaps” the candidate who wants to keep his returns private. He also argued the law could set off a slippery slope that could lead to more extreme candidate disclosures like mental and physical information.
Mark Albert, another attorney arguing against the law, echoed this sentiment, stating in a tongue-in-check riff that eventually presidential candidates would have to release a “23 and me” report detailing his or her genetics, a reference to the private company that sells DNA kits.
Trump vs. California
Newsom signed the “Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act” into law in July.
“The United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement,” Newsom said at the time.
Another lawsuit was filed in July by Republican voters along with the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of California who argue that this a political maneuver that takes voting rights away from Trump’s supporters.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow praised Thursday’s ruling.
“We are encouraged that the federal court tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted,” he said in a statement. “It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violates the Constitution.”
CNN’s Ariane de Vogue, Pamela Brown, Stephanie Becker and Zachary B. Wolf contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link