Law professor schools Trump's legal team on why their Supreme Court arguments failed

Fordham Law Professor Jed Sugerman noted on Twitter, that Thursday's Supreme Court ruling should be a "teachable moment" for the lawyers at the Mazars firm, which fought the disclosure of President Donald Trump's financial information.

During the oral arguments with the High Court about the New York case, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow argued that as president Trump was above the law.

"In both cases, petitioners contended that the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose and violated the separation of powers," the Supreme Court said in the decision. "The President did not, however, argue that any of the requested records were protected by executive privilege."

They ultimately ruled that the Congressional Financial Services Committee and House Committee on Oversight were performing "oversight," but the separation of powers question was another matter, and Justices explained the Congress isn't the "law enforcement" branch.

"Don’t just go for wins in trial court. Go for getting the law right AND winning," Sugarman told the lawyers. "Assume an appeal and foresee that appellate court balance. Winning a lower court decision with a legal standard that won’t hold up on appeal is no better than losing."

He closed with a reminder not aimed at anyone but arguably should be considered by Sekulow: "And obviously don’t walk into oral argument with an unserious, alienating legal standard that will be rightly rejected unanimously."

See the Twitter thread here.