Supreme Court blocks House committee from immediately reviewing Trump’s financial records
The president’s lawyers had agreed to an expedited review of a lower-court ruling granting access. © Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post The court’s action signals that, even as Congress considers impeaching Trump, the court will undertake a more complete consideration of the legal powers of Congress and state prosecutors to investigate the president while he is in office. The court instructed Trump’s lawyers to file a petition by Dec. 5 stating why the court should accept the case for full briefing and oral argument.
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday filed court papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling directing an accounting firm to hand over his financial records to a Democratic-led congressional panel, setting up a major clash between branches of government.
Trump turned to the justices after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on Nov. 13 that it would not revisit its October decision backing the House of Representatives Oversight Committee's authority to subpoena the records from Mazars LLP, Trump's longtime accounting firm.
Trump asks Supreme Court to prevent banks turning over financial records
President Donald Trump, fighting to keep details of his finances secret, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to prevent records held by Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp from being handed over to Democratic-led congressional panels. © Getty Images US President Donald Trump takes part in a round table discussion on business and red tape reduction in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC on December 6, 2019. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) Trump's lawyers asked the high court to put a hold a Dec. 3 ruling by Manhattan-based 2nd U.S.
The Supreme Court on Nov. 25 put that ruling on hold, giving Trump until Thursday to file his appeal.
"This is a case of firsts. It is the first time that Congress has subpoenaed personal records of a sitting president," Trump's lawyers wrote.
The Republican president's lawyers have called the Oversight Committee's subpoena to Mazars illegitimate.
The lower court ruling, if left intact, would bring House Democrats closer to shedding light on the inner workings of Trump's business interests even as they pursue an impeachment inquiry against him focusing on his dealings with Ukraine.
Trump brings a third case over his financial records to the Supreme Court
Trump asked the Supreme Court to freeze a subpoena for his financial records sent to two banks by congressional Democrats.A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Deutsche Bank and Capital One must turn over years of the president's personal and business financial records to two Democratic-led committees in the House of Representatives. The subpoenas, issued in April, also seek information related to the finances of the president's family members.
In a separate case, Trump has already asked the Supreme Court to review a New York-based federal appeals court's ruling that local prosecutors can enforce a subpoena also issued to Mazars demanding Trump's personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018. The justices are due to discuss whether to hear that case at a meeting on Dec. 13.
In a third case, the New York-based appeals court on Tuesday directed Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp to comply with different subpoenas from congressional Democrats demanding similar material.
Trump's lawyers said in a court filing on Wednesday they would ask the Supreme Court to put a hold on that case as well. As the court already blocked the similar Mazars ruling, it would likely grant that request.
Supreme Court to review congressional, state subpoenas for Trump financial records .
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether President Trump can be shielded from congressional and state subpoenas for his personal banking and accounting records, in what could be a major test of separation powers between the executive branch, Congress, and the states. At issue is the extent a sitting president can be subject to congressional oversight-- under "valid legislative purposes"-- of his private business dealings before he took office. The high court will also look at the extent a sitting president can be subject to state and local grand jury investigations and prosecutions.