Legal experts weigh in on Supreme Court rulings on Trump's financial records

The U.S. Supreme Court, on July 9, handed down two anxiously awaited decisions dealing with access to President Donald Trump’s financial records — one in Trump v. Vance, the other in Trump v. Mazars.

In the 7-2 Trump v. Vance decision, the High Court ruled that the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance can have access to President Donald Trump’s financial documents — and rejected Trump’s claim that “absolute immunity” protects him from having to share those documents with Vance and other prosecutors. The dissenters in Trump v. Vance were Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

In Trump v. Vance, Chief Justice John Roberts declared, “Given these safeguards and the Court’s precedents, we cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause. Our dissenting colleagues agree.”

But Trump v. Mazars, also a 7-2 ruling, is a disappointment for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives — as the Supreme Court ruled that Congress, at least for now, cannot have access to the president’s financial records.

The two decisions are receiving a lot of reactions and analysis from legal experts. According to CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, “Even though the president lost on the legal issue, he has clearly won on his ability to run for reelection without disclosing his tax returns to the public.”

Here’s what other legal experts are saying: