(l-r) Douglas Letter, William Consovoy and Donald Trump.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice and the House of Representatives were in rare agreement Friday, telling the U.S. Supreme Court it should not throw out the president's lawsuits challenging congressional subpoenas for his tax documents.

The justices last week requested the parties and DOJ say whether the political question doctrine—which blocks courts from weighing in on political matters best handled by the other branches—applied to the fights over the House subpoenas to financial institutions housing the records.

In three supplemental briefs filed with the court Friday, the DOJ, Trump and House lawyers all told the justices the cases are justiciable and urged them to issue a ruling on the merits.

"No one urged the courts below to refrain from resolving the lawsuits that President Trump and related persons and entities had brought. The committees and President Trump had good reasons for agreeing that the courts should resolve these disputes," House general counsel Douglas Letter wrote.

The House further argued that a ruling from the court "that a subpoena controversy involving congressional committees and the president is not subject to judicial resolution would be a mistake."

"But, if this court has concerns about deciding the merits of this particular dispute, there is a way out, short of a major pronouncement on justiciability: the court could dismiss the writs as improvidently granted, leaving in place the judgments of the courts of appeals," the House brief reads. The House has won the cases over subpoenas to Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One at both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. and Second Circuits.

Trump's private attorneys with Consovoy McCarthy similarly warned the court against finding the cases are nonjusticiable, saying such a ruling "would have sweeping ramifications."

"It would not only disable the president from challenging congressional subpoenas for his private records. It would mean … that nobody—not even ordinary individuals, associations and businesses—may judicially contest a congressional subpoena," attorney William Consovoy wrote. "If the legitimate-legislative-purpose test is unmanageable, after all, then the issue is a political question irrespective of the parties' identity. Abandoning this well-worn judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of congressional subpoenas would overturn 139 years of precedent without any justification for doing so."

And solicitor general Noel Francisco echoed those arguments in his supplemental brief. He told the justices their request for briefing on the political question doctrine "points at an understandable concern," but this dispute differs from court fights between the executive and legislative branches because the subpoenas are issued to third parties and Trump is suing in his personal capacity.

"Refusing to adjudicate the merits of this dispute would in effect give congressional committees free rein to issue subpoenas to any third-party custodian without any meaningful checks or balances, because such third parties often would be inclined to comply (as the third parties in these cases have indicated they will)," the Justice Department's brief reads. "The president would be stripped of any ability to prevent disclosures that are sought as an end-run around the negotiation and accommodation process, and courts would be deprived of any ability to review whether the committees had the power to issue the subpoenas in the first instance."

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday in the disputes over the congressional subpoenas. The cases have been making their way through the federal courts for more than a year and will be heard the same day as a challenge to a subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney for Trump's tax records.

Trump's Consovoy McCarthy legal team argues that lawmakers lacked a legitimate legislative purpose to issue the subpoenas, and were issued as a form of "law enforcement" or attempt to unearth political dirt about Trump. The Justice Department has also urged courts to strike down the subpoenas.

Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who wrote the court's majority opinion upholding the Mazars subpoena, raised the justices's requested briefing during oral arguments last week in another pair of House lawsuits.

He asked DOJ attorney Hashim Mooppan if the Justice Department would ever raise the political question doctrine in the case over testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn or a challenge to Trump's use of military funds for border wall construction. Mooppan replied that the agency did not plan on invoking the doctrine in those cases.

Read more:

Justices Ask if They're Barred From Ruling on Trump Tax Cases in New Hurdle for US House

Mazars, Impeachment & Mueller: Judges Review House's Year of Trump Legal Fights

Treasury IG Says Mnuchin, Leaning on OLC, Properly Withheld Trump's Tax Returns. Will a Judge Agree?