最高法院大法官埃琳娜·卡根周二表示，在曼哈顿地区检察官与唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)争夺总统纳税申报单和其他财务记录的案件辩论中，“总统不能凌驾于法律之上，这是我们宪法秩序的基本准则”。

尽管如此，“总统不能像普通公民一样被对待，”卡根在口头辩论中承认，口头辩论是通过电话进行的，因为采取了预防措施来避免冠状病毒传播。

但她向总统的律师、保守派律师和电台主持人杰伊·塞库洛(Jay Sekulow)施压，询问为何特朗普应该获得不受约束的州刑事调查豁免权，据信曼哈顿大陪审团正在进行这一调查。

“我们认为[是一种明确的方法，在这里非常具体，在刑事诉讼中针对总统文件的国家程序应该被禁止，”塞库洛说。

在他们的提问中，几名法官似乎对特朗普应该获得塞库洛提议的那种绝对的调查豁免权持怀疑态度。但是，由于承认总统享有独特的宪法保护，他们没有就如何处理这些案件的统一标准达成一致。

曼哈顿地区检察官赛·万斯的案件是最高法院正在考虑的涉及总统个人记录的两起案件之一。另一个来源于众议院监督和改革委员会向特朗普的会计师事务所发出的传票，要求获得大量财务文件。那个案子在早上早些时候进行了辩论。

在向曼哈顿地区检察官办公室的总法律顾问凯里·邓恩(Carey Dunne)提问时，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)想知道，在“我们允许全国各地的地区检察官”开始从现任总统那里寻找记录之前，为什么不应该有比国会传票更高的“标准”。

罗伯茨被认为是一个潜在的对一些高知名度案件的摇摆投票。

邓恩和对方律师在州检察官如何满足这一“更高标准”或这一标准应该是什么样的细节上意见不一。但是罗伯茨正在接受这样一个分析的暗示可能最终会给总统一个打击，总统的律师支持绝对豁免权的论点。

Sekulow表示担心的是，一项允许对在任总统提起国家刑事诉讼的决定“武器化”了数千名当地选举的地区检察官，这些检察官可能决定以这种方式追究政治冤情。他说，这将允许任何地方检察官“骚扰、分散和干扰现任总统”。

邓恩回应称，如果允许州检察官将总统卷入刑事诉讼，他们将持续骚扰总统的说法“没有历史依据”。

“所谓的闸门已经打开了好几代人，”邓恩说。“从来没有洪水。”

邓恩补充说，在任期内不必要地拖延涉及总统记录的刑事诉讼——或者用塞库洛的话来说，“临时总统豁免”——可能会导致“永久豁免”，如果诉讼时效被允许终止的话。

这些案件的判决预计将在今年夏天晚些时候做出。

5月11日，唐纳德·特朗普总统在一次关于冠状病毒检测的新闻发布会上听取提问。

JUSTICE KAGAN SAYS 'PRESIDENT ISN'T ABOVE THE LAW' AS TRUMP, NEW YORK PROSECUTORS BATTLE OVER TAX RETURNS

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Tuesday it is a "fundamental precept of our constitutional order that a president isn't above the law" during arguments in a case pitting the Manhattan district attorney against Donald Trump in his quest to obtain the president's tax returns and other financial records.

Nevertheless, "presidents can't be treated just like an ordinary citizen," Kagan acknowledged during the oral arguments, which were conducted by phone because of precautions taken to avoid coronavirus transmission.

But she pressed the president's counsel, conservative lawyer and radio host Jay Sekulow, on why Trump should be provided unchecked immunity from state criminal investigations, which are believed to be underway with a Manhattan grand jury.

"We think [as] a categorical approach, and it's very specific here, state process as to targeting the president's documents in a criminal proceeding should be prohibited," Sekulow said.

In their questioning, several justices appeared skeptical of the idea that Trump should receive the kind of absolute immunity from investigation that Sekulow had proposed. But, in recognition of the unique constitutional protections given to the presidency, they did not agree upon a unified standard that would govern how these cases could proceed.

The case from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance is one of two the Supreme Court is considering involving the president's personal records. The other stems from a subpoena, issued by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, to Trump's accounting firm, seeking reams of financial documents. That case was argued earlier in the morning.

In a question to Carey Dunne, the general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney's office, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered why there shouldn't be "a higher standard" than applies to a congressional subpoena "before we permit the district attorneys from around the country" to begin seeking records from a sitting president.

Roberts has been viewed as a potential swing vote on a number of high-profile cases.

Dunne and opposing counsel disagreed on the finer points of how state prosecutors could meet this "higher standard" or what this standard should look like. But the suggestion that Roberts was entertaining such an analysis could end up being a blow to the president, whose lawyers favor the argument of absolute immunity.

Sekulow expressed concerns that a decision enabling state criminal proceedings against a sitting president "weaponizes" the thousands of locally elected district attorneys who could decide to pursue political grievances this way. It would allow any district attorney to "harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president," he said.

Dunne responded that "there's no historical support" for the argument that state prosecutors will persistently harass presidents if allowed to involve them in criminal proceedings.

"The supposed floodgates have been open for generations," Dunne said. "There's never been a flood."

Dunne added that unnecessarily delaying criminal proceedings involving presidential records during a term of office—or, as Sekulow put it, "temporary presidential immunity"—could lead to "permanent immunity" if statutes of limitations were allowed to expire.

Decisions in the cases are expected later this summer.

President Donald Trump listens to questions during a press briefing about coronavirus testing on May 11.