SCOTUS ruled that the President is not above the law, so Trump will eventually release his financial records. How long before he goes to prison?

abc3643
Today, in the case Trump v. Vance, the US Supreme Court ruled against President Trump. In a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Trump's two appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh, the SCOTUS reasserted that no one is above the law.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/19-635_o7jq.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-vance/

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TRUMP v. VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 19–635. Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020

In 2019, the New York County District Attorney’s Office—acting on behalf of a grand jury—served a subpoena duces tecum on Mazars USA, LLP, the personal accounting firm of President Donald J. Trump, for financial records relating to the President and his businesses. The President, acting in his personal capacity, sued the district attorney and Mazars in Federal District Court to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that a sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from state criminal process under Article II and the Supremacy Clause. The District Court dismissed the case under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, and, in the alternative, held that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief. The Second Circuit rejected the District Court’s dismissal under Younger but agreed with the court’s denial of injunctive relief, concluding that presidential immunity did not bar enforcement of the subpoena and rejecting the argument of the United States as amicus curiae that a state grand jury subpoena seeking the President’s documents must satisfy a heightened showing of need.

Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.
Updates:
1 mo
More from the opinion of the Court:
=======
Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.
1 mo
(Continued) More from the opinion of the Court:
=======
The arguments presented here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate. 941 F. 3d, at 646, n. 19.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.
SCOTUS ruled that the President is not above the law, so Trump will eventually release his financial records. How long before he goes to prison?
1
7
Add Opinion