President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House June 24, 2020. AP Photo: Evan Vucci

President Donald Trump intends to file an amended complaint in federal court to introduce new arguments against a Manhattan grand jury's subpoena for his tax records, according to documents filed by his attorney Wednesday.

In the same communication, the president's legal team listed a number of potential arguments it could make to trim the subpoena or contest it entirely.

Trump sued Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in the federal court for the Southern District of New York in September, arguing that presidents are immune from state prosecution. The case was eventually heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected Trump's immunity argument in a 7-2 ruling July 9.

The ruling opened the door for Trump to "raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote.

In a joint letter to Senior U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who heard the case last fall, Trump attorney William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy agreed to the DA's request to expedite proceedings so the amended complaint will have a deadline of July 27.

The complaint, Consovoy wrote, will include "some or all" of four categories of argument: that the subpoena is too broad or otherwise not properly tailored; that it is motivated by bad faith or a desire to harass the president; that it is meant to manipulate the president's policy decisions or retaliate against him for his acts in office; or that compliance would impede his constitutional duties.

Manhattan District Attorney's Office General Counsel Carey Dunne argued that Marrero has already rejected similar arguments from Trump. Dunne echoed Roberts' reference to the 1807 ruling in United States v. Burr, in which presidents were found to stand "in nearly the same situation with any other individual" as to their private papers.

"The President's proposal attempts to elide that standard; indeed, it expressly invites this Court to conduct a heightened-scrutiny inquiry drawn from the concurring opinion that was utterly rejected by the majority decision," Dunne wrote.

Consovoy quoted from Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion to emphasize why discovery will be needed later in the case. Lower courts will have to "begin by delving into why the State wants the information; why and how much the State needs the information, including whether the State could obtain the information elsewhere; and whether compliance with the subpoena would unduly burden or interfere with a President's official duties," Kavanaugh wrote.

Vance may file a motion to dismiss before the discovery process begins, Consovoy acknowledged. Dunne will have a deadline of Aug. 3 to answer the amended complaint or move against it, according to the joint letter, and in the event of a motion, briefing would be completed by Aug. 14.

Dunne argued that the Supreme Court did not suggest discovery would be appropriate in the case.

"Even if the President were able to file a sufficient amended pleading, discovery into the District Attorney's motives would be highly irregular and inappropriate," he wrote.

On Wednesday, Dunne also asked the Supreme Court to enter its formal judgment without delay, explaining that the ongoing grand jury investigation involves "numerous individuals and entities … in which time is of the essence."

Issues with statutes of limitation could arise "in the near future," Dunne wrote.

As was the case in 2019, the president's accounting firm Mazars, which is the recipient of the grand jury subpoena, has taken no position in the case. Attorneys from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker entered their appearances for Mazars this week.

Read more:

Vance Says Grand Jury Probe 'Will Resume' After US Supreme Court Rejects Trump Immunity Claim

'We All Know It's About the President': Trump Finds Defenders at Supreme Court in Tax Returns Case

Trump Can't Block NY Grand Jury Subpoena Seeking Tax Records, 2nd Circuit Rules