On October 7, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero upheld a subpoena by the Manhattan District Attorney for President Donald Trump’s tax returns for the last several years. Trump v Vance, s.d., 1:19cv-8694. The subpoena has no connection with the New York state law allowing the state government to release the Trump tax returns. Instead it involves a criminal investigation against the President. Here is the 75-page opinion.

Judge Marrero is a Clinton appointee who was born in Puerto Rico.

The President immediately asked for a stay from the Second Circuit, which granted it. In the Second Circuit the case is 19-3204.

In California, the Secretary of State has still not appealed the U.S. District Court opinion in the tax returns-ballot case. It may be that the California Secretary of State believes the tax returns may emerge through the activity of the New York and District of Columbia pending cases.

On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Connecticut case, Feehan v Marcone, 18-1470. The state courts had refused to order a new legislative election following the November 2018 regular election in one particular district. The margin between the Republican and the Democrat was extremely close, and then it became known that a number of voters larger than the margin had accidentally been given ballots that omitted that race. The state courts said there was no evidence that if those voters had been allowed to vote, the outcome would have been different. Of course it would have been impossible for there to be any such evidence. It is the Republican nominee who had brought this lawsuit.

Also on October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a Washington state case, Save Tacoma Water v Port of Tacoma, 18-1518. The issue was whether a nonjudicial government official has the power to invalidate an initiative petition (even though it has enough valid signatures) if he or she thinks the initiative, if passed, would be unconstitutional or illegal.

Here is the California Secretary of State’s calendar for various filing deadlines for the March 2020 presidential primary. The calendar says the Secretary of State will announce by December 6 which presidential candidates are on various presidential primary ballots.

Therefore, there is very little time left for appellate courts to decide the validity of the California tax returns-ballot law. Notwithstanding the time crunch, though, the state has still not filed a notice of appeal in Trump v Padilla, the case over whether presidential primary candidates must show their tax returns. The U.S. District Court enjoined the law. The Secretary of State said he would appeal, but so far he has not, which seems to indicate that he won’t appeal. But no general news source has mentioned his failure to appeal, so far.