History in Couplets

BREAKING: Appeals Court has REJECTED Trump’s appeal of the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena for his financial records.

Big win for House Democrats. pic.twitter.com/MNhVIURksM

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) October 11, 2019

Don't get all triumphant about Trump having to turn over his tax returns quite yet.

1. He'll appeal until the last dog dies.

2. If he loses at Supreme Court he will defy the order, because he is lawless and Barr will back him up.

3. Fire at Mazar's.

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 11, 2019

Part of the point of a per curiam order is to reject entirely the arguments of the appellees (Trump, in this case) and leave no room for discussion.  The Court found their claims meritless:  end of discussion.  This is as dismissive as a court can be.

Which is not to say the court doesn't have an opinion.  Most of the court's opinion details the factual record, a handy way of explaining to those who want their legislative hearings to proceed like TeeVee shows why reality is slower and more deliberate.  The rest is a law school tutorial on this area of the law, nailing down with precise case law why there is no other option available to the court.  It's a nice contrast to the White House letter condemning the House inquiries, exhibiting, as one person put it, that the author of that letter was out sick the day they taught law in law school.  This opinion is that lawyer's homework lesson.  (Well, and a response to the dissent, whose opinion is bizarre in the extreme.  Per the dissent, Congress can only investigate the Administration when it is doing so as an impeachment inquiry.  Beyond that, Congress has no legitimate oversight authority.  Which, among other things, makes you wonder why Art. I establishes the Congress, and gives it express authority, including the impeachment power, over the office created by Art. II.)

Probably the most famous per curiam opinion in recent memory of Bush v. Gore.  The Court didn't do a lot to justify it's decision, it just made one, and tried to make it as cleanly as possible so no part of any argument expressed in a majority opinion could be used in subsequent cases (hence the concluding sentence of the order, that this order did not establish any precedent.  A remarkable statement in a system that relies almost entirely on precedent.).

So, will the Supremes reverse this? Probably not. The D.C. Circuit did all they could to give the higher bench nothing to go on.  Will they take it up anyway?  Doubtful, but not impossible.  The dissent certainly doesn't give them anything to go on, as it's arguments are now moot.  Will the Supremes be anxious to re-examine the issues outlined in the majority opinion?  Not likely.

As for Trump fighting "until the last dog dies," I refer you to the census question cases which went to the Supremes, who found in favor of the question being denied, and then returned the case to the trial courts for further proceedings.  At that point DOJ lawyers in one case were facing sanctions, DOJ lawyers in the other case (IIRC) tried to remove themselves from the case, and Trump fulminated behind closed doors until somebody finally convinced him he had lost.

Expect history to repeat itself, just probably without the Supremes accepting certiorari.