Supreme Court Sets Trump Tax Return Cases for March Argument Session
The justices granted review in a trio of cases—"Trump v. Vance," "Trump v. Mazars" and "Trump v. Deutsche Bank"—in which federal appellate courts in New York and Washington rejected the president's arguments to shield financial records from law enforcement and congressional investigators.
December 13, 2019 at 04:41 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether President Donald Trump must comply with subpoenas for his financial documents from a New York grand jury and from U.S. congressional committees.
The justices granted review in a trio of cases—Trump v. Vance, Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank—in which federal appellate courts in New York and Washington rejected the president's arguments to shield financial records from law enforcement and congressional investigators. Then-candidate Trump vowed to release those records, but has since refused.
The announcement, which set arguments for the March session, adds blockbuster cases to a docket already teeming with disputes that could deliver far-reaching consequences on immigration, workplace equality and abortion rights.
The New York grand jury subpoena, issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., stems from a state grand jury investigation into allegations that the president paid hush money to two women through his former lawyer Michael Cohen before the 2016 election.
Trump's counsel, William Consovoy of Washington's Consovoy McCarthy, had argued that Trump had "temporary presidential immunity" from investigations and prosecutions while in office.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last month, in an opinion by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, unanimously upheld the subpoena. "The subpoena at issue is directed not at the President, but to his accountants; compliance does not require the president to do anything at all," the appeals court said.
The petition challenging the grand jury subpoena was filed by Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Alan Sekulow, along with Consovoy.
The court consolidated two cases—one from the D.C. Circuit and one from the Second Circuit—in which U.S. congressional committees are seeking records from Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
The U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee issued the subpoena at issue in Trump v. Mazars. Mazars is Trump's longtime accounting firm. The Supreme Court last month, in an unsigned order, put the subpoena temporarily on hold until Trump's lawyers filed a formal petition challenging the D.C. Circuit's ruling.
The House subpoena was triggered by testimony from Cohen during the House committee's hearing in February. Cohen alleged that Trump had inflated and deflated his assets on personal financial statements to obtain a bank loan and to reduce his New York real estate taxes and insurance premiums.
A divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled that the House had a legitimate legislative purpose in seeking the tax records because "it seeks information important to determining the fitness of legislation to address potential problems within the executive branch and the electoral system; it does not seek to determine the president's fitness for office."
Consovoy argued in his petition that the committee's investigation of Trump for wrongdoing was not a legitimate legislative purpose but, instead, was "an attempt to exercise a law-enforcement power beyond Congress's legislative purview."
House general counsel Douglas Letter, in his response urging the justices to deny review, told the high court, "This court has repeatedly upheld Congress's ability to issue legislative subpoenas and has 'unequivocally and emphatically endorsed' the view that 'a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the president,' and that the president may be subject even to process issued by a private citizen."
The justices also agreed to hear Trump's appeal of two subpoenas issued by House committees seeking financial documents related to Trump's businesses and certain of his relatives. A divided Second Circuit panel ruled in December that Deutsche Bank and Capital One had to provide nearly a decade worth of tax returns and other documents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readAlabama Man Arrested After Causing Bitcoin Price to Surge, Then Plummet After Fake SEC Tweet
3 minute readRegulators Say AI Enforcement Sweeps Are Reining in Hucksters, Not Innovation
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250