The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday lined up against House Democrats in their pursuit of financial records from President Donald Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA, contending lawmakers had only presented a “scattershot” of legislative interest in the documents.

The government argued in a friend-of-the-court brief in a Washington federal appeals court that House Democrats had not “clearly” stated why they need or want the records. The subpoena was issued in April by the House Oversight Committee, which asserted that is has “full authority to investigate whether the president may have engaged in illegal conduct before and his tenure in office.”

“It is imperative that the House—or at the very least the committee—provide a clearer and more particular statement of the potential legislative measures for which the subpoenaed materials are pertinent and necessary,” Justice Department lawyer Gerard Sinzdak of the civil division wrote in the filing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month invited the Justice Department to express its views in the case, one of several pending actions that confront the president’s continued push to keep his financial records secret. The government is not a party in the case, which tests the oversight and investigative powers of Congress.

Two of the three D.C. Circuit judges who heard arguments in the case last month expressed some skepticism that Trump can block House Democrats from enforcing the subpoena against Mazars. House lawyers contend the president, breaking norms by refusing to publicly disclose his tax returns, has only himself to blame for his predicament.

The Justice Department’s absence in the Mazars case drew some questions last month from one of the panel judges, Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee who had earlier led the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Rao noted that many of the arguments from William Consovoy, the lead attorney for Trump, “relate to the unique constitutional status of the office of the presidency” and the “infringement on his authority.”

“Why is the Justice Department not participating to protect the office of the president, if that’s the primary basis of your argument?” Rao asked during one exchange.

Consovoy said “naturally” the president’s personal lawyer would advocate in a case involving Trump’s accounting firm. He said he did not know why DOJ was not involved. “I can only speak for my participation and not others,” he said.

The Justice Department is defending Trump in various suits that allege his continued earning of profits from his business entities—including his hotel in downtown Washington—is violating the U.S. constitution’s emoluments clauses. Those provisions prohibit any president from receiving certain gifts and royalties, measures adopted at the time of the country’s founding to provide a check against undue outside influence of the presidency.

Separately, Justice Department lawyers have made appearances in a House lawsuit in Washington that contends the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS are unlawfully withholding Trump’s federal tax returns from the House Ways and Means Committee. Consovoy has entered an appearance in that case on behalf of Trump.

“A congressional demand for the president’s personal records raises the specter that members of the legislative branch are impermissibly attempting to interfere with or harass the head of the executive branch, or at least that the subpoena will have that effect, especially given the possibility of a multitude of such subpoenas,” Sinzdak wrote in Tuesday’s filing.

In May, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia upheld the Mazars subpoena as a lawful action.

“To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which ‘legislation could be had,’ Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution,” Mehta wrote.

The Mazars case in the D.C. Circuit is one of two pending actions in which House Democrats are seeking financial information from entities in Trump’s orbit.

Trump’s lawyers unsuccessfully tried to quash a subpoena seeking information from his longtime lender Deutsche Bank.

In the appeal, a panel of judges on the Second Circuit invited the Justice Department to express its views by Aug. 19. The appeals court will hear arguments Aug. 23.

The Justice Department’s new D.C. Circuit brief is posted below:

Read more: