The Constitutional Clash on a Conference Call

<p>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court debated the nature of presidential power in two sets of cases regarding demands for President Trump’s personal records: one about his taxes, the other about claims that during his campaign he paid to silence women with whom he previously had affairs. This is what a constitutional clash on a conference call sounded like. Guest: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak" target="_blank">Adam Liptak</a>, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. </p><p>Background reading: </p><ul><li>Based on the court’s questions,<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns.html?smid=pc-thedaily" target="_blank"> our reporter thinks</a> the two sets of cases may well be decided in different ways.<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/12/us/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-live.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage?smid=pc-thedaily" target="_blank"> Here are the full arguments</a>, if you want to listen in.</li><li>Aimee Stephens, the transgender plaintiff in another Supreme Court case who we spoke with<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/podcasts/the-daily/transgender-supreme-court.html?smid=pc-thedaily" target="_blank"> on the show</a> in November, has died of complications related to kidney failure.<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/aimee-stephens-supreme-court-dead.html?smid=pc-thedaily" target="_blank"> She was 59</a>. </li></ul>