{"id":4509,"date":"2020-07-09T16:36:58","date_gmt":"2020-07-09T20:36:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?p=4509"},"modified":"2025-12-05T15:44:15","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T20:44:15","slug":"temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA<\/em>, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump\u2019s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses.<\/p>\n

On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance<\/em>, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses.<\/p>\n

Craig Green \"\"<\/a>
\nProfessor of Law<\/h2>\n

Trump v. Mazars USA: <\/em>Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump\u2019s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their \u201clegislative power,\u201d seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President\u2019s personal information. The majority created a new \u201cbalanced approach\u201d that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without allowing political warfare through a President\u2019s private records. The Court remanded for lower courts to consider: (i) whether Congress\u2019s asserted legislative purpose requires information about the President, rather than someone else, (ii) whether the subpoena can be narrowed to minimize interbranch conflict, (iii) whether the legislative purpose is adequately identified, and (iv) whether a subpoena\u2019s burdens on the President are excessive. The Court\u2019s flexible multi-part test guarantees that none of Trump\u2019s information will reach Congress before the next election. Yet it offers very limited guidance for deciding future cases, declining even to say how that new test should apply to the subpoenas in this case.<\/p>\n

Trump v. Vance<\/em>: New York\u2019s District Attorney subpoenaed financial records concerning President Trump — including his tax returns since 2011 — so that a grand jury could investigate \u201cmultiple individuals whose conduct may have violated state law.\u201d The Supreme Court refused to give Trump \u201cabsolute immunity\u201d from that subpoena, holding that the seriousness of a criminal prosecution requires access to all kinds of available evidence. The Court cited a long history of presidents who offered analogous information. Thomas Jefferson agreed to surrender information in various criminal proceedings against Aaron Burr. Richard Nixon had to give tape recordings to the Watergate Special Prosecutor. Presidents Monroe, Grant, Ford, Carter, and Clinton participated in diverse criminal prosecutions by providing testimony or documents. By contrast, Trump argued that his case is different because it concerns a state criminal investigation, not federal law. The Supreme Court, however, specifically denied Trump\u2019s arguments about presidential distraction, stigma, and harassment. The Court held that \u201cno citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty\u201d to comply with criminal subpoenas. Even though Trump can still make specific objections to overbroad requests or undue burdens, he cannot escape from subpoenas altogether by claiming absolute immunity or heightened legal standards. Despite Trump\u2019s defeat in this case, New York\u2019s grand jury subpoena should not yield any lawyer available public information for months or longer, which obviously affects the decision\u2019s political scope and practical importance.<\/p>\n

Mark C. Rahdert \"\"<\/a>
\nProfessor of Law<\/h2>\n

In its two decisions regarding subpoenas of the President’s private financial records, the Supreme Court took a decidedly cautious position. Importantly, it reaffirmed the principle that the presidency is not above the law, and that the President, like every other citizen, is obligated to cooperate with properly conducted criminal law investigations. But at the same time it acknowledged that such an investigation must take into account the unique role of the presidency in our constitutional government by incorporating procedural protections against bad faith, harassment, or undue distraction. The Court also reaffirmed the authority of Congress to use its subpoena powers in order to conduct legislative investigations, but it imposed new limits on that authority when it is directed toward the President himself. The Court seemed much more concerned with the potential for overreach by Congress than it did with the prospect of recalcitrance by the President.<\/p>\n

One result of the decisions is that the President and his associated business interests will likely be required eventually to submit records pertaining to his personal finances to prosecutorial authorities in the State of New York, although public disclosure of those materials is unlikely at any time in the near future. Another result is that Congress probably will not be able to obtain most of the President’s financial records that it subpoenaed, except in the extremely unlikely event that it is able to reach a negotiated arrangement with the Trump administration. As the Court observed, such negotiated arrangements have been customary in the past, but as anyone with even passing awareness of the current political situation must know, the President’s refusal to disclose his personal finances is virtually certain to remain absolute. If the Court imagined otherwise, they were engaging in wishful thinking.<\/p>\n

For Temple Law reactions to other SCOTUS decisions, click\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump\u2019s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses. On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses. Craig Green Professor of Law Trump v. Mazars USA: Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump\u2019s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their \u201clegislative power,\u201d seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President\u2019s personal information. The majority created a new \u201cbalanced approach\u201d that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":4360,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[878,861,879,880,877,856,312,331,876,873,874,875],"audience":[58,55,54],"coauthors":[16,52],"class_list":["post-4509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faculty-scholarship","tag-congress","tag-faculty-react-to-scotus","tag-financial-records","tag-president-donald-trump","tag-scotus-decision","tag-scotus-ruling","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-of-the-united-states","tag-tax-returns","tag-trump","tag-trump-v-mazars-usa","tag-trump-v-vance","audience-alumni","audience-practitioners","audience-students"],"yoast_head":"\r\nTemple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump\u2019s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses. On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses. Craig Green Professor of Law Trump v. Mazars USA: Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump\u2019s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their \u201clegislative power,\u201d seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President\u2019s personal information. The majority created a new \u201cbalanced approach\u201d that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without …\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1293\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"581\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Craig Green, Mark Rahdert\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Craig Green, Mark Rahdert\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Amber Bethune\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0\"},\"headline\":\"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":842,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Congress\",\"Faculty React to SCOTUS\",\"financial records\",\"President Donald Trump\",\"SCOTUS Decision\",\"SCOTUS Ruling\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Supreme Court of the United States\",\"tax returns\",\"Trump\",\"Trump v. Mazars USA\",\"Trump v. Vance\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Faculty Scholarship\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/\",\"name\":\"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/06\\\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg\",\"width\":1293,\"height\":581},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\",\"name\":\"Voices at Temple\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0\",\"name\":\"Amber Bethune\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g49f6eed04a5dcf74b19c4274c59af23c\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Amber Bethune\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/author\\\/tug31039\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple","og_description":"On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump\u2019s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses. On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses. Craig Green Professor of Law Trump v. Mazars USA: Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump\u2019s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their \u201clegislative power,\u201d seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President\u2019s personal information. The majority created a new \u201cbalanced approach\u201d that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without …","og_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/","og_site_name":"Voices at Temple","article_published_time":"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1293,"height":581,"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Craig Green, Mark Rahdert","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Craig Green, Mark Rahdert","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/"},"author":{"name":"Amber Bethune","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0"},"headline":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions","datePublished":"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/"},"wordCount":842,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg","keywords":["Congress","Faculty React to SCOTUS","financial records","President Donald Trump","SCOTUS Decision","SCOTUS Ruling","Supreme Court","Supreme Court of the United States","tax returns","Trump","Trump v. Mazars USA","Trump v. Vance"],"articleSection":["Faculty Scholarship"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/","name":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions - Voices at Temple","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg","datePublished":"2020-07-09T20:36:58+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-05T20:44:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/books-and-gavel-e1638561496595.jpg","width":1293,"height":581},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/temple-law-faculty-reacts-to-the-trump-v-mazars-usa-and-trump-v-vance-decisions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/","name":"Voices at Temple","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/141d3fbdbb98710ce0925aefbd0e23c0","name":"Amber Bethune","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g49f6eed04a5dcf74b19c4274c59af23c","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1a31f336623ec644509e5106016d06557db8b0813f6c98de352ce8759f859cd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Amber Bethune"},"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/author\/tug31039\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4509"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4512,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4509\/revisions\/4512"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4360"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4509"},{"taxonomy":"audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/audience?post=4509"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=4509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}