Trump fires off tweetstorm after Supreme Court's ruling

Following the Supreme Court's decisions on his financial records, including one that said that the President is not immune to a New York prosecutor's subpoena, Trump said the court gave him a "delayed ruling" that they "never would have given" to another president.

The President also tweeted that the Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to lower courts for further review was "not fair to this Presidency or Administration!"

Read the President's tweets:

After the Supreme Court ruled on a New York prosecutor's request for Trump's financial records, Joe Biden quote-tweeted a video of himself addressing President Trump in 2019.

"Mr. President, release your tax returns or shut up," he said in the video from 2019, comparing his record to the President's and touting that he'd released 21 years of his tax returns. 

Biden quoted the video this morning, writing, "As I was saying." 

Remember: While the justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena, prosecutors will not get documents now.

In the Supreme Court ruling on whether a New York prosecutor can obtain the President's financial documents, all nine justices say that the President does not have absolute immunity from a subpoena, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explains. But here’s why it might take time to get the documents anyway.

“It seems unlikely given this opinion that the President will ultimately be able to stop the disclosure of these events to the grand jury in Manhattan, but it's going to take time,” Toobin adds.

Here’s what will happen now

Toobin: “This process will begin again. The district court will get briefings. They may hear evidence. That will be appealed to the second circuit court of appeals. And then the losing party will likely go back to the Supreme Court. All of this will take a while.”

Why will this have to go back?

Toobin: “Chief Justice Roberts' opinion says that like any other defendant, [President Trump] can go in the district court and say, ‘this is harassment. It is overbroad.’ They can't make the same arguments that they made in this case, but there are arguments that any defendant can make to try to stop a subpoena. They usually don't work, but they are arguments that are raised in court.”

A note on time:

“Federal courts don't work overnight,” Toobin says. “Here we are in the middle of July, the election is in November. It seems to be very unlikely that the actual documents will be turned over to the grand jury before November.”

Final note from Toobin: “There is no requirement or even permission for public disclosure of these documents at any point.”

WATCH:

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. issued a statement via his press office regarding the Supreme Court ruling this morning that President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena.

Remember: The documents, however, will remain blocked for now.

WATCH:

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Supreme Court ruled on two cases related to President Trump's financial records.

In one, the justices ruled President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena — but prosecutors will not get documents now.

They also blocked Congress from getting the President's records for now, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Each of the two opinions were 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts and both of Trump's appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — joining the liberal justices.

Here are the seven justices on the majority opinion:

And these are the two justices who dissented:

WATCH:

House subpoenas for President Trump’s financial documents will remain blocked the Supreme Court said, sending a controversial case back down to the lower court for further review.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 7-2 opinion. Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions. The President’s two nominees voted in the majority.

About the case: The case pitted the President's personal lawyers against House Democrats who say they need records from Trump's longtime accounting firm and two banks. The House argued that it was seeking the records from Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank and Capital One for the purpose of investigating whether Congress should amend federal conflict-of-interest and financial disclosure laws, as well as laws regulating banks.

Lawyers for the House stressed that the subpoenas are directed at third parties, not the President, and that the documents are unrelated to his official duties. Trump argued there is no valid legislative purpose for the documents, and instead the House is engaged in a fishing expedition to see if he broke the law.

Key moments from the oral arguments: In early May, Trump's attorneys argued that the House subpoenas were "unprecedented in every sense."

When a lawyer for the House argued in support of the subpoenas issued by three committees, several conservative justices zeroed in on whether the efforts by the Democratic-led house amounted to harassment of Trump.

For his part, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the lawyer about the limits of congressional powers and suggested that the House needed to take into consideration the fact that the subpoenas involved, not at an ordinary litigant, but the President.

The liberal justices, meanwhile, pounced on lawyers for Trump, suggesting that the court has long upheld Congress' power to investigate.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that every recent president has voluntarily turned over his tax returns. She pointed to past investigations concerning Watergate, Whitewater and Paula Jones.

"How do you distinguish all of those cases," she asked, adding that before Congress can legislate, it must investigate.

WATCH:

The Supreme Court on Thursday said President Trump is not immune from New York’s subpoena, but prosecutor will not get documents now.

The 7-2 opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts said, “we reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”

About the case: New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance had served a subpoena on Trump's long-time accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his tax returns as part of an investigation into hush money payments to two women with whom the President allegedly had extra-marital affairs pursuant to testimony of Michael Cohen. (Trump has denied the affairs.)

Key moments from the oral arguments: In early May, Trump's attorneys asked for "temporary presidential immunity" against the prosecutor's subpoena.

Several of the justices did not seem receptive to Trump's broad claims of immunity, pointing at times to court precedent concerning Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton that were relied upon by the lower courts that ruled against Trump.

Justice John Roberts asked a lawyer for Trump about the fact that in Clinton v. Jones, the court allowed a private citizen to bring civil suit against a sitting president.

"You focus on the distraction to the President" in this case, Roberts told a lawyer for Trump, but he said in the Clinton case, "we were not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed that New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance was not targeting official acts by the President.

"You are asking for a broader immunity than anyone else gets," she told a Trump attorney.

And when he emphasized that the president is different than an ordinary litigant, Justice Elena Kagan shot back, saying: "The President isn't above the law."

The Supreme Court has ruled on whether a New York prosecutor can obtain the President's financial documents and tax records from his accounting firm and banks.

Here's what you need to know about the case:

WATCH:

Any moment now, the Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions on two cases this morning concerning access to President Trump's financial records.

The cases tackle whether Trump can stop the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives from getting his financial and banking records from his accounting firm and banks and whether the President can block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor seeking his tax returns.

At oral arguments, the justices focused on Trump's effort to shield his documents but they also prodded the lawyers to look into the future and gauge how an eventual decision will impact the separation of powers and the White House's broad claims of immunity.

WATCH: