vox--2020-05-12--Fauci’s Senate testimony debunked a number of Trump’s favorite coronavirus lies

Dr. Anthony Fauci was careful not to directly rebuke President Donald Trump during Tuesday ’ s Senate hearing on the coronavirus pandemic .
Even so , the totality of his testimony undermined talking points Trump has used to downplay the pandemic while pushing for the premature opening of businesses and schools .
Fauci — who as director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is the government ’ s top infectious disease expert — made clear that he thinks states should pump the breaks on reopening until the number of new cases per day starts going down .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the Republican ones — seemed appreciative of his input .
The tone for the hearing was set immediately , when Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) — chair of the Health , Education , Labor and Pensions Committee — kicked things off by talking about people going “ back to school and back to work , ” even though he ’ s currently self-quarantining in Tennessee after one of his staffers tested positive for Covid-19 .
Fauci didn ’ t waste any time pouring cold water on a question Alexander asked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall .
“ The idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate the re-entry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far , ” he said .
Minutes later , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) used his questioning time to guide Fauci through the demolition of two of Trump ’ s favorite talking points .
Trump , for instance , has repeatedly insisted that the coronavirus “ is going to disappear , ” including as recently as last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Sanders , Fauci made clear that is not going to happen .
“ When you talk about ‘ will this virus just disappear ’ — and I ’ ve said publicly many times , that is just not gon na happen because it ’ s such a highly transmissible virus , ” he said .
“ And even if we get better control over several months , it is likely that there will be virus somewhere on this planet that will eventually get back to us.
” Fauci also agreed with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concurs with experts who have concluded the US coronavirus death toll , which has reached more than 80,000 , represents an undercount — comments undercutting arguments Trump and his advisers have reportedly embraced in private about official death numbers being inflated .
“ Most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number , because given the situation particularly in New York City when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their health care system , that there may have been people who died at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not counting as Covid , because they never really got to the hospital , ” Fauci said .
When Trump hasn ’ t been engaged in wishful thinking or denialism , he ’ s tried to shift blame for America ’ s coronavirus woes , going as far as to absurdly attack former President Barack Obama for not developing tests for a virus that didn ’ t even exist at the time he was president .
During Tuesday ’ s hearing , Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) asked Fauci if Obama did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a vaccine less likely.
” Fauci quickly dismissed the question — and , by implication , Trump ’ s talking point .
“ No , senator , not at all , ” Fauci said .
As Trump prematurely declares victory over the coronavirus and focuses on getting the economy up and running in time to salvage his flagging reelection hopes , Fauci made clear that if states reopen schools and businesses without first meeting the White House coronavirus task force ’ s criteria for doing so — and so far none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences .
“ If some areas — city , states , or what have you — jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently , my concern is that we will start to see the spikes that might turn into outbreaks , ” he said .
One state that is currently experiencing a coronavirus outbreak is Kentucky .
But that didn ’ t deter Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) from using his questioning time to push back on Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Paul began by discussing what he described as the “ silver linings ” of coronavirus outbreaks at meatpacking plants — namely , his unproven belief that people who get Covid-19 gain immunity and therefore can go back to work .
He then pivoted into making a case that more rural states like his haven ’ t been hit as hard by the coronavirus as some may think .
“ In rural states we never really reached any sort of pandemic levels in Kentucky and other states , ” Paul said , adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England , we ’ ve had a relatively benign course for this virus nationwide.
” “ I don ’ t think you ’ re the end-all , ” Paul said .
“ I don ’ t think you ’ re the one person who gets to make a decision .
We can listen to your advice , but there are people on the other side saying there ’ s not going to be a surge and we can safely reopen the economy.
” In response , Fauci pointed out that “ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end-all and only voice in this .
I ’ m a scientist , a physician , and a public health official.
” He warned that Paul ’ s push to reopen schools at a time when doctors are struggling to understand the link between Covid-19 and a potentially deadly syndrome developed by kids who have contracted it could be ill-advised .
“ We don ’ t know everything about this virus , and we really ought to be very careful , particularly when it comes to children , ” Fauci said .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican spectrum , Romney represented the end that has mostly been purged as Trump has consolidated control of the GOP .
Romney not only devoted his questioning time to pushing back on the president ’ s conspiracy theories , he also rebuked administration officials for misleading the American public about the status of coronavirus testing in the US .
Addressing Dr. Brett Giroir , assistant secretary of health and human services , Romney said : “ I understand that politicians are going to frame data in a way that ’ s most positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t expect that from admirals .
But yesterday you celebrated that we had done more tests and more tests per capita even than South Korea .
But you ignored the fact that they accomplished theirs at the beginning of the outbreak , while we treaded water during February and March.
” “ As a result , by March 6 , the US had completed just 2,000 tests , whereas South Korea had conducted more than 140,000 tests , ” Romney continued .
“ So , partially as a result of that , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80,000 deaths .
I find our test record to be nothing to celebrate.
” Many senators let Fauci do the talking for them .
Sen. Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) , for instance , alluded to the reality that not only does the US have the most coronavirus deaths in the world , but also a death rate that ’ s on the high end of the spectrum , and asked Fauci if that means the US has to do better .
“ Of course , ” Fauci said .
“ You always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem like merely stating the obvious , and in a normal situation it would be .
But as Trump tries to turn reality on its head by falsely telling Americans that the federal government ’ s coronavirus response has been the toast of the world , Fauci acknowledging that things aren ’ t as rosy as the president wants people to believe had an element of speaking truth to power .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Dr. Anthony Fauci was careful not to directly rebuke President Donald Trump during Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the coronavirus pandemic. Even so, the totality of his testimony undermined talking points Trump has used to downplay the pandemic while pushing for the premature opening of businesses and schools.
Fauci — who as director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is the government’s top infectious disease expert — made clear that he thinks states should pump the brakes on reopening until the number of new cases per day starts going down. And with one notable exception, senators — even the Republican ones — seemed appreciative of his input.
The tone for the hearing was set immediately, when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) — chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — kicked things off by talking about people going “back to school and back to work,” even though he’s currently self-quarantining in Tennessee after one of his staffers tested positive for Covid-19. Fauci didn’t waste any time pouring cold water on a question Alexander asked about the possibility of universities reopening in the fall.
“The idea of having treatments available or a vaccine to facilitate the re-entry of students into the fall term would be something that would be a bit of a bridge too far,” he said.
Minutes later, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) used his questioning time to guide Fauci through the demolition of two of Trump’s favorite talking points.
Trump, for instance, has repeatedly insisted that the coronavirus “is going to disappear,” including as recently as last week. But in response to a question from Sanders, Fauci made clear that is not going to happen.
“When you talk about ‘will this virus just disappear’ — and I’ve said publicly many times, that is just not gonna happen because it’s such a highly transmissible virus,” he said. “And even if we get better control over several months, it is likely that there will be virus somewhere on this planet that will eventually get back to us.”
Fauci with a subtle rebuke of Trump: "When you talk about 'will this virus just disappear' -- and I've said publicly many times, that is just not gonna happen because it's such a highly transmissible virus." pic.twitter.com/af6xgx2dpb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
Fauci also agreed with a question Sanders asked him about whether he concurs with experts who have concluded the US coronavirus death toll, which has reached more than 80,000, represents an undercount — comments undercutting arguments Trump and his advisers have reportedly embraced in private about official death numbers being inflated.
“Most of us feel that the number of deaths are likely higher than that number, because given the situation particularly in New York City when they were really strapped with a very serious challenge to their health care system, that there may have been people who died at home who did have Covid who were not counting as Covid, because they never really got to the hospital,” Fauci said.
Sanders asks Fauci if coronavirus deaths are being undercounted. Fauci says "most of us feel the numbers of deaths are likely higher" than the official numbers. pic.twitter.com/dxyQj7C914 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
When Trump hasn’t been engaged in wishful thinking or denialism, he’s tried to shift blame for America’s coronavirus woes, going as far as to absurdly attack former President Barack Obama for not developing tests for a virus that didn’t even exist at the time he was president.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) asked Fauci if Obama did anything that “made the likelihood of creating a vaccine less likely.” Fauci quickly dismissed the question — and, by implication, Trump’s talking point.
“No, senator, not at all,” Fauci said.
ROMNEY: The president said the other day that Obama is responsible for our lack of a vaccine. Are Obama or Trump responsible?
FAUCI: "No, senator, not at all." pic.twitter.com/pvqwwaj17F — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
As Trump prematurely declares victory over the coronavirus and focuses on getting the economy up and running in time to salvage his flagging reelection hopes, Fauci made clear that if states reopen schools and businesses without first meeting the White House coronavirus task force’s criteria for doing so — and so far none of them have — there will be deadly consequences.
“If some areas — city, states, or what have you — jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently, my concern is that we will start to see the spikes that might turn into outbreaks,” he said.
A tale of two Republicans
One state that is currently experiencing a coronavirus outbreak is Kentucky. But that didn’t deter Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from using his questioning time to push back on Fauci and downplay the coronavirus in Trumpian fashion.
Paul began by discussing what he described as the “silver linings” of coronavirus outbreaks at meatpacking plants — namely, his unproven belief that people who get Covid-19 gain immunity and therefore can go back to work. He then pivoted into making a case that more rural states like his haven’t been hit as hard by the coronavirus as some may think.
“In rural states we never really reached any sort of pandemic levels in Kentucky and other states,” Paul said, adding, “really, outside of New England, we’ve had a relatively benign course for this virus nationwide.”
Rand Paul: "In rural states we never really reached any sort of pandemic levels in Kentucky and other states ... outside of New England, we've had a relatively benign course for this virus nationwide." (More than 81,000 Americans are dead.) pic.twitter.com/tQSZvU6gfx — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
Paul eventually took aim at Fauci directly.
“I don’t think you’re the end-all,” Paul said. “I don’t think you’re the one person who gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge and we can safely reopen the economy.”
In response, Fauci pointed out that “I have never made myself out to be the end-all and only voice in this. I’m a scientist, a physician, and a public health official.” He warned that Paul’s push to reopen schools at a time when doctors are struggling to understand the link between Covid-19 and a potentially deadly syndrome developed by kids who have contracted it could be ill-advised.
“We don’t know everything about this virus, and we really ought to be very careful, particularly when it comes to children,” Fauci said.
Sen. Rand Paul: "I don't think you're the end all. I don't think you're the one person that gets to make a decision."
Dr. Anthony Fauci: "I have never made myself out to be the end all and only voice in this. I'm a scientist, a physician and a public health official." pic.twitter.com/Nqlg3zOqn3 — CSPAN (@cspan) May 12, 2020
If Paul represented the Trumpiest end of the Republican spectrum, Romney represented the end that has mostly been purged as Trump has consolidated control of the GOP.
Romney not only devoted his questioning time to pushing back on the president’s conspiracy theories, he also rebuked administration officials for misleading the American public about the status of coronavirus testing in the US.
Addressing Dr. Brett Giroir, assistant secretary of health and human services, Romney said: “I understand that politicians are going to frame data in a way that’s most positive politically. Of course they don’t expect that from admirals. But yesterday you celebrated that we had done more tests and more tests per capita even than South Korea. But you ignored the fact that they accomplished theirs at the beginning of the outbreak, while we treaded water during February and March.”
“As a result, by March 6, the US had completed just 2,000 tests, whereas South Korea had conducted more than 140,000 tests,” Romney continued. “So, partially as a result of that, they have 256 deaths and we have almost 80,000 deaths. I find our test record to be nothing to celebrate.”
Romney rebukes HHS official Giroir for comparing the US testing record favorably with South Korea : "Politicians are going to frame data in a way that's most positive politically. Of course they don't expect that from admirals ... I find our testing record nothing to celebrate." pic.twitter.com/afUBHieThH — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
Many senators let Fauci do the talking for them. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), for instance, alluded to the reality that not only does the US have the most coronavirus deaths in the world, but also a death rate that’s on the high end of the spectrum, and asked Fauci if that means the US has to do better.
“Of course,” Fauci said. “You always have to do better.”
Sen @timkaine: Dr Fauci, the coronavirus death rate in the US when compared with other nations is unacceptable, isn't it?
FAUCI: "Yes, of course."
KAINE: Would you say the US has to do better?
FAUCI: "Of course. You always have to do better." pic.twitter.com/EUtroCnE6l — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2020
That may seem like merely stating the obvious, and in a normal situation it would be. But as Trump tries to turn reality on its head by falsely telling Americans that the federal government’s coronavirus response has been the toast of the world, Fauci acknowledging that things aren’t as rosy as the president wants people to believe had an element of speaking truth to power.


vox--2020-05-12--Why Elon Musk disobeyed government orders and reopened a Tesla factory

Elon Musk has reopened Tesla ’ s factory in Fremont , California , pushing back against local public health officials who declined to give the company authorization to resume production .
After previously doubting the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic , threatening to move Tesla ’ s headquarters out of California , and even filing a federal lawsuit , Musk has now volunteered to be the first one arrested for defying the county ’ s order , though that ’ s yet to happen .
“ I will be on the line with everyone else , ” the Tesla CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone is arrested , I ask that it only be me.
” On Monday , a local Alameda official wrote to Tesla ordering the company to cease production beyond minimum basic operations , according to the San Francisco Chronicle .
But that doesn ’ t appear to have stopped the company ’ s work .
Local news footage showed activity at the Tesla plant in Fremont not long after Musk ’ s tweets .
In fact , one worker told the Chronicle that work had resumed even earlier .
And in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were told that if they choose not to return to work , they risk losing their unemployment benefits .
Tesla did not reply to Recode ’ s request for comment in time for publication .
This situation doesn ’ t bode well for several parties involved .
How local officials , who maintain they ’ re still negotiating with Tesla on how to reopen safely , ultimately respond will reveal how much power they really have in enforcing social distancing and stay-at-home measures .
After all , Tesla coming away unscathed could set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will need to push back against influential companies eager to resume production and manufacturing .
Plenty of people have been caught violating rules instituted by the pandemic , and some — disproportionately black and brown people — have been arrested .
But Musk is quite literally one of the richest men alive and , thanks in part to his fervent fan base , seems to believe that Tesla will not be penalized , despite the order .
In fact , he ’ s already warned that the manufacturing currently done in Fremont could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged his supporters to campaign on Tesla ’ s behalf , leaders in other states , including the governor of Texas , started encouraging Musk to move operations .
Given that Tesla employs some 10,000 people at the Fremont plant , California would undoubtedly prefer to keep those jobs in the state .
And Musk has already picked up some other notable support .
On Tuesday morning , President Donald Trump declared in a tweet that the state should allow Tesla to open the factory immediately , and adding “ It can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNBC on Monday , “ He ’ s one of the biggest employers and manufacturers in California , and California should prioritize doing whatever they need to do to solve those health issues so that he can open quickly and safely.
” Tesla is not the only company eager to push back against local officials and return to work , though it ’ s the most high-profile company to do so .
At least two meatpacking facilities have been pushed to reopen , despite the concerns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be very , very concerning when we ’ re relying on our local government officials to set the benchmarks — and enforce public health rules — for returning to work safely .
What ’ s behind the battle to open the Tesla factory in Fremont The Fremont factory in Alameda County is the mainstay of Tesla ’ s US operations , but the factory has been shut down since March 23 .
The factory ’ s initial closing , much like its reopening , was mired in controversy .
It all started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : On March 16 , Alameda County issued its shelter-in-place order .
That evening , Musk told staff in an internal email , “ if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable , please don ’ t feel obligated to come to work.
” He added , “ I will personally be at work , but that is just me .
Totally OK if you want to stay home for any reason.
” The next day , the Alameda County Sheriff ’ s Department said in a tweet that Tesla was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but could “ maintain basic minimum operations.
” According to the county ’ s order , this included “ minimum necessary activities to maintain the value of the business ’ s inventory , ensure security , process payroll and employee benefits.
” Tesla responded to that by saying it would reduce its workforce to 2,500 people , and then , on March 18 , General Motors , Ford , and Chrysler announced the shutdown of their factories .
Tesla followed suit a day later on March 19 , which was incidentally the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nearly two months later , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom issued new guidance for the return of manufacturing in the state .
It seems Tesla interpreted this as permission to return to work .
In a blog posted over the weekend , the company said it planned to restart operations with several notable adjustments , and had also said that people would work in shifts so that only 30 percent of the workforce would be present at a time .
But California has also maintained that local governments can maintain stricter measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole .
Alameda County decided to do just that and has so far declined to give Tesla permission to resume operations at its Fremont factory .
In response , Tesla sued Alameda County on May 9 , arguing that it had a right to open and that the county ’ s rules contradicted statewide policies .
Musk announced the lawsuit on Twitter , where he also threatened to move the Tesla factory out of California : This brings us to May 11 , when Tesla reopened the Fremont factory .
The Alameda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been given the county ’ s blessing to resume production , and despite negotiation , the department said there ’ s yet to be an “ approved plan ” for resuming production , according to a statement issued after the factory reopened anyway .
Meanwhile , despite Musk ’ s offer to be the first one , it doesn ’ t look like there have been any reports of employees being arrested .
Elon Musk hardly seems eager to cooperate with local leaders But let ’ s not forget how much Elon Musk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
As noted above , Musk tweeted back in March that panic over the illness was “ dumb , ” and soon thereafter , he said both the “ virality ” and the “ fatality rate ” associated with Covid-19 were “ overstated.
” Later that month , the billionaire wrongly predicted that there would be “ close to zero new cases ” by the end of April , and he falsely claimed , “ Kids are essentially immune.
” Musk has a clear financial interest in resuming business as usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard for it .
After criticizing the notion of “ forced isolation , ” Musk cheered on the reopening of Texas , writing that factories should “ reopen with care & appropriate protection , but don ’ t put everyone under de facto house arrest.
” On a Tesla earnings call , he also called Covid-19 social distancing orders “ fascist.
” In Musk ’ s view , it ’ s apparently unfair that local and state governments have allowed certain types of manufacturing in California and the rest of the country to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his supporters seem to believe , is the victim of an uneven approach to resuming production .
Gov .
Newsom , meanwhile , has remained relatively soft-spoken on the Tesla controversy .
After affirming that localities do have the right to reopen at their own pace , the California governor described himself in a Monday press conference as “ a strong advocate , supporter , and early adopter ” of Tesla technology and said he expected the company could , in negotiation with Alameda County , probably open next week .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopened , and when a reporter asked about a photo showing a full parking lot at the Fremont facility that morning , Newsom said , “ When I walked up to the podium this morning , that wasn ’ t the case.
” There ’ s evidence that other government officials were willing to negotiate with Tesla , too .
Days before Musk ’ s defiant decision , the mayor of Fremont , Lily Mei , seemed to encourage the idea of allowing Tesla to reopen .
“ We know many essential businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict safety and social distancing practices , ” she said in a May 9 statement that specifically mentions Tesla .
“ I strongly believe these same practices could be possible for other manufacturing businesses , especially those that are so critical to our employment base.
” But while California officials debate how best to handle the Fremont factory situation , other states are responding to Musk ’ s threat to move Tesla headquarters out of California .
Texas leaders , including Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Gov .
Greg Abbott , seem interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Las Vegas mayor wrote Musk a letter encouraging a move to Nevada .
Musk ’ s complaint about other American automotive factories being given the green light to reopen is not incorrect .
However , these factories are in other states .
Toyota has restarted work at several plants , including one facility in San Antonio , Texas .
Michigan is also allowing manufacturing work to resume May 18 , which will open up production for the Big Three American auto giants .
The Trump administration has made it clear that decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state and local governments .
As public officials have repeatedly made clear , reopening the country will not be a uniform process , and manufacturing facilities in areas less impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic will inevitably get a head start over their competitors .
We also know that reopening factories , specifically , comes with the risk of new outbreaks .
American meatpacking plants have become hot spots for Covid-19 cases due in part to workers being close together on the line .
Despite these and other concerns , Tesla decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its workers to the factory .
In a recently released “ Return to Work ” playbook , Tesla lays out new measures for employees returning to work , including temperature and symptom checks , touchless surfaces , and lots of protective equipment , some of which it will be employees ’ responsibilities to acquire .
The extent to which measures like these will be effective at protecting workers is debatable .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Elon Musk has reopened Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, pushing back against local public health officials who declined to give the company authorization to resume production. After previously doubting the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic, threatening to move Tesla’s headquarters out of California, and even filing a federal lawsuit, Musk has now volunteered to be the first one arrested for defying the county’s order, though that’s yet to happen.
“I will be on the line with everyone else,” the Tesla CEO tweeted on Monday afternoon. “If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”
On Monday, a local Alameda official wrote to Tesla ordering the company to cease production beyond minimum basic operations, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. But that doesn’t appear to have stopped the company’s work. Local news footage showed activity at the Tesla plant in Fremont not long after Musk’s tweets. In fact, one worker told the Chronicle that work had resumed even earlier. And in an email obtained by the Guardian, Tesla workers were told that if they choose not to return to work, they risk losing their unemployment benefits.
Tesla did not reply to Recode’s request for comment in time for publication.
This situation doesn’t bode well for several parties involved. How local officials, who maintain they’re still negotiating with Tesla on how to reopen safely, ultimately respond will reveal how much power they really have in enforcing social distancing and stay-at-home measures. After all, Tesla coming away unscathed could set a concerning precedent for local officials that will need to push back against influential companies eager to resume production and manufacturing.
Plenty of people have been caught violating rules instituted by the pandemic, and some — disproportionately black and brown people — have been arrested.
But Musk is quite literally one of the richest men alive and, thanks in part to his fervent fan base, seems to believe that Tesla will not be penalized, despite the order. In fact, he’s already warned that the manufacturing currently done in Fremont could potentially be moved elsewhere. After Musk encouraged his supporters to campaign on Tesla’s behalf, leaders in other states, including the governor of Texas, started encouraging Musk to move operations.
Given that Tesla employs some 10,000 people at the Fremont plant, California would undoubtedly prefer to keep those jobs in the state. And Musk has already picked up some other notable support. On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump declared in a tweet that the state should allow Tesla to open the factory immediately, and adding “It can be done Fast & Safely!”
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNBC on Monday, “He’s one of the biggest employers and manufacturers in California, and California should prioritize doing whatever they need to do to solve those health issues so that he can open quickly and safely.”
Tesla is not the only company eager to push back against local officials and return to work, though it’s the most high-profile company to do so. At least two meatpacking facilities have been pushed to reopen, despite the concerns and warnings of local officials. But that should be very, very concerning when we’re relying on our local government officials to set the benchmarks — and enforce public health rules — for returning to work safely.
What’s behind the battle to open the Tesla factory in Fremont
The Fremont factory in Alameda County is the mainstay of Tesla’s US operations, but the factory has been shut down since March 23. The factory’s initial closing, much like its reopening, was mired in controversy. It all started 10 days after this March 6 tweet:
The coronavirus panic is dumb — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2020
On March 16, Alameda County issued its shelter-in-place order. That evening, Musk told staff in an internal email, “if you feel the slightest bit ill or even uncomfortable, please don’t feel obligated to come to work.” He added, “I will personally be at work, but that is just me. Totally OK if you want to stay home for any reason.”
The next day, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department said in a tweet that Tesla was not considered an “essential business” but could “maintain basic minimum operations.” According to the county’s order, this included “minimum necessary activities to maintain the value of the business’s inventory, ensure security, process payroll and employee benefits.” Tesla responded to that by saying it would reduce its workforce to 2,500 people, and then, on March 18, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler announced the shutdown of their factories. Tesla followed suit a day later on March 19, which was incidentally the same day Musk started tweeting about making ventilators.
Nearly two months later, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued new guidance for the return of manufacturing in the state. It seems Tesla interpreted this as permission to return to work. In a blog posted over the weekend, the company said it planned to restart operations with several notable adjustments, and had also said that people would work in shifts so that only 30 percent of the workforce would be present at a time. But California has also maintained that local governments can maintain stricter measures than those proposed by the state as a whole. Alameda County decided to do just that and has so far declined to give Tesla permission to resume operations at its Fremont factory.
In response, Tesla sued Alameda County on May 9, arguing that it had a right to open and that the county’s rules contradicted statewide policies. Musk announced the lawsuit on Twitter, where he also threatened to move the Tesla factory out of California:
Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2020
This brings us to May 11, when Tesla reopened the Fremont factory. The Alameda County sheriff maintains that Tesla has not been given the county’s blessing to resume production, and despite negotiation, the department said there’s yet to be an “approved plan” for resuming production, according to a statement issued after the factory reopened anyway. Then, late in the day on May 12, Alameda County issued another statement that said “Tesla can begin to augment their Minimum Business Operations this week in preparation for possible reopening as soon as next week.” The county stopped short of saying that the factory should cease all of its current operations.
Meanwhile, despite Musk’s offer to be the first one, it doesn’t look like there have been any reports of employees being arrested.
Elon Musk hardly seems eager to cooperate with local leaders
But let’s not forget how much Elon Musk has oscillated in his statements about the coronavirus pandemic. As noted above, Musk tweeted back in March that panic over the illness was “dumb,” and soon thereafter, he said both the “virality” and the “fatality rate” associated with Covid-19 were “overstated.” Later that month, the billionaire wrongly predicted that there would be “close to zero new cases” by the end of April, and he falsely claimed, “Kids are essentially immune.”
Musk has a clear financial interest in resuming business as usual, and he’s been pushing hard for it. After criticizing the notion of “forced isolation,” Musk cheered on the reopening of Texas, writing that factories should “reopen with care & appropriate protection, but don’t put everyone under de facto house arrest.” On a Tesla earnings call, he also called Covid-19 social distancing orders “fascist.”
In Musk’s view, it’s apparently unfair that local and state governments have allowed certain types of manufacturing in California and the rest of the country to reopen. Tesla, he and many of his supporters seem to believe, is the victim of an uneven approach to resuming production.
Gov. Newsom, meanwhile, has remained relatively soft-spoken on the Tesla controversy. After affirming that localities do have the right to reopen at their own pace, the California governor described himself in a Monday press conference as “a strong advocate, supporter, and early adopter” of Tesla technology and said he expected the company could, in negotiation with Alameda County, probably open next week. In fact, the Tesla factory had already reopened, and when a reporter asked about a photo showing a full parking lot at the Fremont facility that morning, Newsom said, “When I walked up to the podium this morning, that wasn’t the case.”
There’s evidence that other government officials were willing to negotiate with Tesla, too. Days before Musk’s defiant decision, the mayor of Fremont, Lily Mei, seemed to encourage the idea of allowing Tesla to reopen. “We know many essential businesses have proven they can successfully operate using strict safety and social distancing practices,” she said in a May 9 statement that specifically mentions Tesla. “I strongly believe these same practices could be possible for other manufacturing businesses, especially those that are so critical to our employment base.”
But while California officials debate how best to handle the Fremont factory situation, other states are responding to Musk’s threat to move Tesla headquarters out of California. Texas leaders, including Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Gov. Greg Abbott, seem interested in welcoming the company to Texas, and the Las Vegas mayor wrote Musk a letter encouraging a move to Nevada.
Reopening factories will be a messy process nationwide
Musk’s complaint about other American automotive factories being given the green light to reopen is not incorrect. However, these factories are in other states. Toyota has restarted work at several plants, including one facility in San Antonio, Texas. Michigan is also allowing manufacturing work to resume May 18, which will open up production for the Big Three American auto giants.
The Trump administration has made it clear that decisions about reopening local business are up to the state and local governments. As public officials have repeatedly made clear, reopening the country will not be a uniform process, and manufacturing facilities in areas less impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic will inevitably get a head start over their competitors. We also know that reopening factories, specifically, comes with the risk of new outbreaks. American meatpacking plants have become hot spots for Covid-19 cases due in part to workers being close together on the line.
Despite these and other concerns, Tesla decided to violate local public health guidance and return its workers to the factory. In a recently released “Return to Work” playbook, Tesla lays out new measures for employees returning to work, including temperature and symptom checks, touchless surfaces, and lots of protective equipment, some of which it will be employees’ responsibilities to acquire. The extent to which measures like these will be effective at protecting workers is debatable.
Update, May 13, 10:35 am ET: This piece was updated to include a new statement from Alameda County.


vox--2020-05-12--Aimee Stephens, who brought the first major trans rights case to the Supreme Court, has died

Aimee Stephens , the trans woman at the center of the first trans rights case to be fully heard by the US Supreme Court , died Tuesday while in hospice care at home , according to her brother-in-law John Pedit .
She was 59 years old .
“ Aimee is an inspiration .
She has given so many hope for the future of equality for LGBTQ people in our country , and she has rewritten history , ” Stephens ’ s wife , Donna Stephens , said in a statement .
” The outpouring of love and support is our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired from her job in 2013 when she told her boss that she planned to transition to female .
She then sued her former employer for sex discrimination .
“ I ’ d given quite a few years to them , I had good reviews , we got along good — then all of a sudden it ’ s , ‘ We don ’ t need you anymore , ’ ” she told Vox last October .
“ I got mad enough to do something about it.
” That case became the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full hearing at the Supreme Court last fall .
But Stephens didn ’ t live long enough to hear the Court ’ s decision .
Stephens had long had kidney disease , which required frequent dialysis .
But her condition had worsened recently , making dialysis impossible , and she was moved into hospice care in her home state of Michigan two weeks ago , according to a GoFundMe set up by her wife ’ s family .
“ Being fired from her employer caused an immediate financial strain , leading her spouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” reads a statement on the GoFundMe page .
“ Friends and family have stepped in when they can , but years of lost income have taken a toll on their finances .
Because of this , we are asking for assistance with Aimee ’ s future funeral costs and end-of-life care.
” Ultimately , Stephens ’ s life is a reminder of the devastating costs of discrimination — and the determination to fight it .
She lost the job she loved simply for coming out as trans , with her family left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now they , and the LGTBQ community at large , await whether justice will be delivered .
Stephens ’ s case was the first trans rights case heard by the US Supreme Court In 2013 , Stephens was employed at R.G .
and G.R .
Harris Funeral Homes in Shelby , Michigan , where she had worked her way up from apprentice to funeral director .
At that time , she gave the funeral home ’ s owner , Thomas Rost , a note that she also shared with friends and colleagues about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some of you may have trouble understanding this .
In truth , I have had to live with it every day of my life and even I do not fully understand it myself , ” she wrote .
“ As distressing as this is sure to be to my friends and some of my family , I need to do this for myself and for my own peace of mind , and to end the agony in my soul.
” After he read the note , Rost simply said , “ Okay.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Rost telling her that it was “ not going to work out.
” Stephens sued , claiming her dismissal was discrimination on the basis of her sex , setting off a flurry of legal activity .
According to court documents , Rost testified that he fired Stephens because “ [ she ] was no longer going to represent [ herself ] as a man .
[ She ] wanted to dress as a woman.
” In March 2018 , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee based on that employee ’ s status as a transgender person without being motivated , at least in part , by the employee ’ s sex , ” the court said in its decision .
“ An employer can not discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing its stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align.
” Harris Funeral Homes appealed to the Supreme Court , and oral arguments in her case were heard on October 8 , 2019 .
Stephens ’ s case , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will determine whether LGBTQ people are protected from employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
The cases are among the few heard in the Court ’ s October session that haven ’ t seen a decision yet .
Multiple federal district and appeals courts have held that trans and queer people are protected under the law , but with conservatives holding a 5-4 advantage in the high court , Stephens ’ s case is far from certain .
“ I found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I could be in the history books , but somebody ’ s got ta do it , and I ’ d be happy and satisfied to be that person , ” Stephens told Vox in an interview the morning before oral arguments .
The details of the end of her life — and the financial strain from her experience with job discrimination — are common for trans people in the US .
Trans people are three times more likely than their cisgender peers to be unemployed , according to the 2015 US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of trans people live in poverty , and one in five trans people in the US will experience homelessness in their lifetimes .
The difference is that Stephens got mad enough to take a stand .
But she also learned that the road to being treated fairly is painstaking .
“ We ’ ve found that the wheels of justice turn slowly , ” she said last fall .
“ But we ’ re hanging in there and at least now we can sort of see the light at the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the millions of trans people living in the US — even though Stephens herself didn ’ t live long enough to stand in that light .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Editor’s note: On June 15, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers. The original article — last updated on May 12, when Aimee Stephens, the woman at the center of one of the three LGBTQ discrimination cases before the court, died — is below.
Aimee Stephens, the trans woman at the center of the first trans rights case to be fully heard by the US Supreme Court, died Tuesday while in hospice care at home, according to her brother-in-law John Pedit. She was 59 years old.
“Aimee is an inspiration. She has given so many hope for the future of equality for LGBTQ people in our country, and she has rewritten history,” Stephens’s wife, Donna Stephens, said in a statement. ”The outpouring of love and support is our strength and inspiration now.”
Stephens was fired from her job in 2013 when she told her boss that she planned to transition to female. She then sued her former employer for sex discrimination.
“I’d given quite a few years to them, I had good reviews, we got along good — then all of a sudden it’s, ‘We don’t need you anymore,’” she told Vox last October. “I got mad enough to do something about it.”
That case became the first major transgender rights case to receive a full hearing at the Supreme Court last fall. But Stephens didn’t live long enough to hear the Court’s decision.
Stephens had long had kidney disease, which required frequent dialysis. But her condition had worsened recently, making dialysis impossible, and she was moved into hospice care in her home state of Michigan two weeks ago, according to a GoFundMe set up by her wife’s family.
“Being fired from her employer caused an immediate financial strain, leading her spouse Donna to take on several jobs,” reads a statement on the GoFundMe page. “Friends and family have stepped in when they can, but years of lost income have taken a toll on their finances. Because of this, we are asking for assistance with Aimee’s future funeral costs and end-of-life care.”
Ultimately, Stephens’s life is a reminder of the devastating costs of discrimination — and the determination to fight it. She lost the job she loved simply for coming out as trans, with her family left to crowdsource her end-of-life expenses. And now they, and the LGTBQ community at large, await whether justice will be delivered.
Stephens’s case was the first trans rights case heard by the US Supreme Court
In 2013, Stephens was employed at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Shelby, Michigan, where she had worked her way up from apprentice to funeral director. At that time, she gave the funeral home’s owner, Thomas Rost, a note that she also shared with friends and colleagues about her gender transition. “I realize that some of you may have trouble understanding this. In truth, I have had to live with it every day of my life and even I do not fully understand it myself,” she wrote. “As distressing as this is sure to be to my friends and some of my family, I need to do this for myself and for my own peace of mind, and to end the agony in my soul.”
After he read the note, Rost simply said, “Okay.” Stephens was fired two weeks later, with Rost telling her that it was “not going to work out.”
Stephens sued, claiming her dismissal was discrimination on the basis of her sex, setting off a flurry of legal activity. According to court documents, Rost testified that he fired Stephens because “[she] was no longer going to represent [herself] as a man. [She] wanted to dress as a woman.”
In March 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. “It is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” the court said in its decision. “An employer cannot discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing its stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align.”
Harris Funeral Homes appealed to the Supreme Court, and oral arguments in her case were heard on October 8, 2019. Stephens’s case, along with two other cases heard that day, will determine whether LGBTQ people are protected from employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The cases are among the few heard in the Court’s October session that haven’t seen a decision yet.
Multiple federal district and appeals courts have held that trans and queer people are protected under the law, but with conservatives holding a 5-4 advantage in the high court, Stephens’s case is far from certain.
“I found it a little overwhelming when I realized that I could be in the history books, but somebody’s gotta do it, and I’d be happy and satisfied to be that person,” Stephens told Vox in an interview the morning before oral arguments.
The details of the end of her life — and the financial strain from her experience with job discrimination — are common for trans people in the US. Trans people are three times more likely than their cisgender peers to be unemployed, according to the 2015 US Transgender Survey. Meanwhile, 29 percent of trans people live in poverty, and one in five trans people in the US will experience homelessness in their lifetimes.
The difference is that Stephens got mad enough to take a stand. But she also learned that the road to being treated fairly is painstaking. “We’ve found that the wheels of justice turn slowly,” she said last fall. “But we’re hanging in there and at least now we can sort of see the light at the end of the tunnel.”
Her case has massive implications for the millions of trans people living in the US — even though Stephens herself didn’t live long enough to stand in that light.


vox--2020-05-12--The US House’s Supreme Court defense of its Trump investigation was a disaster

Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank should be very easy cases .
Both involve congressional subpoenas seeking , among other things , many of President Trump ’ s financial documents .
The subpoenas target banks and an accounting firm that possess many of Trump ’ s documents ; Trump sued them to prevent them from complying with the subpoena .
The Supreme Court has said repeatedly , over the course of many decades , that courts owe tremendous deference to congressional investigators .
The Court held in Quinn v. United States ( 1955 ) that congressional power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to legislate.
” Legislative subpoenas are permissible , the Court later explained , whenever that subpoena is “ intended to gather information about a subject on which legislation may be had.
” And yet , at Tuesday ’ s oral arguments on both cases , a majority of the Court seemed concerned that the House has too much power to investigate the president .
The Supreme Court appears likely to create a special rule for Trump — or , at least , for sitting presidents — that it wouldn ’ t apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story here is that Douglas Letter , the lawyer for the US House , delivered a disastrous performance at Tuesday ’ s oral argument .
Not long after Letter began his argument , Chief Justice John Roberts expressed disagreement with the Court ’ s longstanding rule giving Congress broad power to conduct investigations , and asked Letter if he could suggest any limits on congressional investigatory power .
Letter had no good answer to that question , and he stumbled over various versions of it again and again as the argument wore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential accountability , or about precedent , or about the basic rule that no one should be above the law , it was a torturous spectacle .
It ’ s clear that a majority of the Supreme Court believes that decades of prior decisions were wrongly decided , at least when President Trump is involved .
And Letter did nothing to allay their concerns .
The one silver lining for anyone troubled by the argument in Mazars and Deutsche Bank , is that the Court appeared more measured in a third case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Vance .
Vance involves a New York grand jury ’ s investigation into possible criminal activity by the Trump Organization , and the justices appeared more sympathetic to the Manhattan district attorney ’ s arguments that this investigation should not be shut down than they were to Letter ’ s arguments in Mazars and Deutsche Bank .
But even if Trump does not prevail in Vance , it ’ s not clear that such a decision will matter very much in the short term .
As several justices emphasized , documents obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidential unless they are introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding .
So , if Trump or the Trump Organization is engaged in criminal activity , it is unlikely that the public will see the evidence of that activity any time soon .
Existing law is very unfavorable to Trump It ’ s tough to exaggerate just how thoroughly current Supreme Court precedents cut against Trump .
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress must have a broad power to conduct investigations , because it is not possible for Congress to make informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court explained in Eastland v. United States Servicemen ’ s Fund ( 1975 ) , “ the power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process ... is inherent in the power to make laws.
” Without such a power , “ a legislative body can not legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.
” Eastland is one of many Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that Congress may conduct nearly any investigation , so long as that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a subject on which legislation may be had.
” Courts , moreover , are forbidden to dig into the legislature ’ s reasons for conducting a particular investigation .
“ So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power , ” the Court held in Barenblatt v. United States ( 1959 ) , “ the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.
” So that ’ s what the law says .
And under that law , the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first case involves a House Oversight Committee investigation targeting the president ’ s accounting firm , Mazars USA .
It seeks information on whether existing presidential financial disclosure laws are sufficiently robust , or whether they need to be stricter .
Similarly , the Deutsche Bank case involves two parallel House investigations targeting banks that possess some of Trump ’ s financial records .
Among other things , those investigations seek information on whether there are “ any links and/or coordination between the Russian government , or related foreign actors , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , transition , administration , or business interests , in furtherance of the Russian government ’ s interests.
” These investigations could inform legislation seeking to reduce foreign money laundering and to reduce foreign interference in US elections .
The Court appears to believe that existing law should not apply to the president Not long after Letter began his argument , Chief Justice Roberts revealed just how sympathetic he is to Trump ’ s position .
Letter ’ s brief , Roberts noted , states that a congressional investigation must “ concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had.
” According to Roberts , this “ test is really not much of a test ” because it doesn ’ t impose significant limits on congressional investigations of the president .
Roberts isn ’ t wrong that the test laid out in Letter ’ s brief is very permissive of congressional investigations .
But it ’ s not like Letter just made that test up .
The idea that Congress may conduct any investigation that concerns “ a subject on which legislation can be had ” was endorsed by many prior Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades .
Roberts ’ s disdain for this longstanding standard was echoed by several of his colleagues .
Justice Neil Gorsuch dismissed it as “ limitless.
” Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried that it would permit congress to declare “ open season ” on presidents .
And Letter was unable to offer a new limit on congressional investigations that would satisfy these justices .
Meanwhile , Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly accused the House of issuing these subpoenas to harass the president — a fact that is irrelevant under Barenblatt ’ s holding that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.
” Even Justice Stephen Breyer , a Clinton appointee , appeared to lose confidence in Letter ’ s arguments .
Shortly before those torturous arguments came to an end , Breyer said that he ’ s concerned that the House is seeking “ a lot of information and some of it is pretty vague , ” and that the task of sorting through these requests and figuring out what information is being turned over could prove too much of a distraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : It was a disaster for Letter and the House .
Letter began his argument with a wealth of precedents that clearly support his client ’ s position , and he appeared completely unprepared for a Court that just does not believe that existing law should apply to President Trump .
A majority of the justices appeared very sympathetic to an argument , pushed by Trump ’ s Justice Department , that the president is special and should enjoy special immunity .
“ The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general argued in his brief , and thus the president must enjoy “ immunity from any process that would risk impairing the independence of his office or interfering with the performance of its functions.
” Such immunity is a precious thing indeed , as the Court has historically allowed Congress to conduct investigations that truly did appear to be motivated entirely by political animus .
Consider the facts of Eastland .
The “ Eastland ” in that case was James Eastland , a Mississippi senator and a staunch segregationist whose disdain for civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Vietnam War .
In a 1972 Senate hearing , Eastland spoke of “ the almost certain probability that a Communist victory ” in Vietnam “ would be followed by a bloodletting that would rival the worst bloodlettings that have taken place in Communist countries to date.
” As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security , Eastland subpoenaed financial records from anti-war groups that organized opposition to the Vietnam War among servicemembers , and that published newspapers expressing an anti-war viewpoint .
The almost certain purpose of these subpoenas was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and intimidate those donors from making future donations .
As one witness testified , Eastland ’ s subpoenas resulted in “ approximately a 50 percent curtailment in money ” distributed to the targeted organization ’ s anti-war activities .
And yet , the Supreme Court upheld this subpoena in Eastland , and it warned future judges against going “ beyond the narrow confines of determining that a committee ’ s inquiry may fairly be deemed within its province.
” So long as a subpoena “ may fairly be deemed ” to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not second-guess that subpoena .
Perhaps Eastland was wrongly decided .
Perhaps men like James Eastland should not have this power to harass political enemies into oblivion .
But that was emphatically not the posture that the Supreme Court appeared to adopt in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank arguments .
Rather , the Court ’ s primary concern seemed to be that the most powerful man in the world — the president of the United States — must be given extraordinary immunity from an investigation that could potentially reveal corruption or worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down investigations of the president altogether It should be said that , while the Court appears likely to give Trump special immunity from investigations , it is still unlikely that he will be given total immunity .
Justice Kavanaugh , for example , suggested that a congressional investigation could still go forward if the information sought was “ demonstrably critical ” to a broader investigation of whether a particular bill is necessary .
Similarly , in Vance , the Court appeared unmoved by Trump ’ s argument that he should be completely immune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , several of the justices appeared to believe that an investigation could move forward , but only if the prosecutor could show that there was a solid basis to believe that the investigation would uncover evidence of wrongdoing — and potentially that there was no other way to obtain relevant evidence , and that this evidence could be lost if the investigation didn ’ t move forward right away .
It is unlikely , in other words , that the Supreme Court will toss out either the House ’ s subpoenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether .
But it is very likely that the Court will announce that the president enjoys special protections against investigations , and then send the cases back down to a lower court to determine if those protections can be overcome in these cases .
That means months , or even years , of additional litigation before these cases are resolved .
Enough to push any final resolution past the November election .
And enough to ensure that voters will go to the polls without knowing what evidence might have been revealed if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump that it applies to anyone else .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank should be very easy cases.
Both involve congressional subpoenas seeking, among other things, many of President Trump’s financial documents. The subpoenas target banks and an accounting firm that possess many of Trump’s documents; Trump sued them to prevent them from complying with the subpoena.
The Supreme Court has said repeatedly, over the course of many decades, that courts owe tremendous deference to congressional investigators. The Court held in Quinn v. United States (1955) that congressional power to conduct investigations is “co-extensive with the power to legislate.” Legislative subpoenas are permissible, the Court later explained, whenever that subpoena is “intended to gather information about a subject on which legislation may be had.”
And yet, at Tuesday’s oral arguments on both cases, a majority of the Court seemed concerned that the House has too much power to investigate the president. The Supreme Court appears likely to create a special rule for Trump — or, at least, for sitting presidents — that it wouldn’t apply to any other person.
Part of the story here is that Douglas Letter, the lawyer for the US House, delivered a disastrous performance at Tuesday’s oral argument. Not long after Letter began his argument, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed disagreement with the Court’s longstanding rule giving Congress broad power to conduct investigations, and asked Letter if he could suggest any limits on congressional investigatory power. Letter had no good answer to that question, and he stumbled over various versions of it again and again as the argument wore on.
For someone who cares about presidential accountability, or about precedent, or about the basic rule that no one should be above the law, it was a torturous spectacle. It’s clear that a majority of the Supreme Court believes that decades of prior decisions were wrongly decided, at least when President Trump is involved. And Letter did nothing to allay their concerns.
The one silver lining for anyone troubled by the argument in Mazars and Deutsche Bank, is that the Court appeared more measured in a third case that was also argued on Tuesday, Trump v. Vance. Vance involves a New York grand jury’s investigation into possible criminal activity by the Trump Organization, and the justices appeared more sympathetic to the Manhattan district attorney’s arguments that this investigation should not be shut down than they were to Letter’s arguments in Mazars and Deutsche Bank.
But even if Trump does not prevail in Vance, it’s not clear that such a decision will matter very much in the short term. As several justices emphasized, documents obtained in a grand jury investigation are typically confidential unless they are introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding. So, if Trump or the Trump Organization is engaged in criminal activity, it is unlikely that the public will see the evidence of that activity any time soon.
Existing law is very unfavorable to Trump
It’s tough to exaggerate just how thoroughly current Supreme Court precedents cut against Trump. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress must have a broad power to conduct investigations, because it is not possible for Congress to make informed law-making decisions without such investigations.
As the Supreme Court explained in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund (1975), “the power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process ... is inherent in the power to make laws.” Without such a power, “a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.”
Eastland is one of many Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that Congress may conduct nearly any investigation, so long as that investigation is “intended to gather information about a subject on which legislation may be had.”
Courts, moreover, are forbidden to dig into the legislature’s reasons for conducting a particular investigation. “So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power,” the Court held in Barenblatt v. United States (1959), “the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.”
So that’s what the law says. And under that law, the House wins both Mazars and Deutsche Bank. The first case involves a House Oversight Committee investigation targeting the president’s accounting firm, Mazars USA. It seeks information on whether existing presidential financial disclosure laws are sufficiently robust, or whether they need to be stricter.
Similarly, the Deutsche Bank case involves two parallel House investigations targeting banks that possess some of Trump’s financial records. Among other things, those investigations seek information on whether there are “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.” These investigations could inform legislation seeking to reduce foreign money laundering and to reduce foreign interference in US elections.
The Court appears to believe that existing law should not apply to the president
Not long after Letter began his argument, Chief Justice Roberts revealed just how sympathetic he is to Trump’s position. Letter’s brief, Roberts noted, states that a congressional investigation must “concern a subject on which legislation can be had.” According to Roberts, this “test is really not much of a test” because it doesn’t impose significant limits on congressional investigations of the president.
Roberts isn’t wrong that the test laid out in Letter’s brief is very permissive of congressional investigations. But it’s not like Letter just made that test up. The idea that Congress may conduct any investigation that concerns “a subject on which legislation can be had” was endorsed by many prior Supreme Court decisions over the course of many decades.
Roberts’s disdain for this longstanding standard was echoed by several of his colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch dismissed it as “limitless.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried that it would permit congress to declare “open season” on presidents. And Letter was unable to offer a new limit on congressional investigations that would satisfy these justices.
Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly accused the House of issuing these subpoenas to harass the president — a fact that is irrelevant under Barenblatt’s holding that “the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.”
Even Justice Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, appeared to lose confidence in Letter’s arguments. Shortly before those torturous arguments came to an end, Breyer said that he’s concerned that the House is seeking “a lot of information and some of it is pretty vague,” and that the task of sorting through these requests and figuring out what information is being turned over could prove too much of a distraction.
It would be hard to sugarcoat this: It was a disaster for Letter and the House. Letter began his argument with a wealth of precedents that clearly support his client’s position, and he appeared completely unprepared for a Court that just does not believe that existing law should apply to President Trump.
With great power comes great immunity
A majority of the justices appeared very sympathetic to an argument, pushed by Trump’s Justice Department, that the president is special and should enjoy special immunity. “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme,” Trump’s solicitor general argued in his brief, and thus the president must enjoy “immunity from any process that would risk impairing the independence of his office or interfering with the performance of its functions.”
Such immunity is a precious thing indeed, as the Court has historically allowed Congress to conduct investigations that truly did appear to be motivated entirely by political animus.
Consider the facts of Eastland. The “Eastland” in that case was James Eastland, a Mississippi senator and a staunch segregationist whose disdain for civil rights was matched by his passionate support for the Vietnam War. In a 1972 Senate hearing, Eastland spoke of “the almost certain probability that a Communist victory” in Vietnam “would be followed by a bloodletting that would rival the worst bloodlettings that have taken place in Communist countries to date.”
As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, Eastland subpoenaed financial records from anti-war groups that organized opposition to the Vietnam War among servicemembers, and that published newspapers expressing an anti-war viewpoint. The almost certain purpose of these subpoenas was to reveal the group’s donors, and intimidate those donors from making future donations. As one witness testified, Eastland’s subpoenas resulted in “approximately a 50 percent curtailment in money” distributed to the targeted organization’s anti-war activities.
And yet, the Supreme Court upheld this subpoena in Eastland, and it warned future judges against going “beyond the narrow confines of determining that a committee’s inquiry may fairly be deemed within its province.” So long as a subpoena “may fairly be deemed” to support a legislative investigation, the courts may not second-guess that subpoena.
Perhaps Eastland was wrongly decided. Perhaps men like James Eastland should not have this power to harass political enemies into oblivion. But that was emphatically not the posture that the Supreme Court appeared to adopt in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank arguments.
Rather, the Court’s primary concern seemed to be that the most powerful man in the world — the president of the United States — must be given extraordinary immunity from an investigation that could potentially reveal corruption or worse.
The Court probably won’t shut down investigations of the president altogether
It should be said that, while the Court appears likely to give Trump special immunity from investigations, it is still unlikely that he will be given total immunity. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, suggested that a congressional investigation could still go forward if the information sought was “demonstrably critical” to a broader investigation of whether a particular bill is necessary.
Similarly, in Vance, the Court appeared unmoved by Trump’s argument that he should be completely immune from any criminal investigation while in office. Instead, several of the justices appeared to believe that an investigation could move forward, but only if the prosecutor could show that there was a solid basis to believe that the investigation would uncover evidence of wrongdoing — and potentially that there was no other way to obtain relevant evidence, and that this evidence could be lost if the investigation didn’t move forward right away.
It is unlikely, in other words, that the Supreme Court will toss out either the House’s subpoenas or the grand jury subpoenas in Vance altogether. But it is very likely that the Court will announce that the president enjoys special protections against investigations, and then send the cases back down to a lower court to determine if those protections can be overcome in these cases.
That means months, or even years, of additional litigation before these cases are resolved. Enough to push any final resolution past the November election. And enough to ensure that voters will go to the polls without knowing what evidence might have been revealed if the Supreme Court applied the same law to Trump that it applies to anyone else.