President Donald Trump talks to media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Nov. 4. Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that two committees of the U.S. House of Representatives may access financial records for President Donald Trump, his children and the Trump organization, finding a "clear and substantial" public interest behind enforcing a set of congressional subpoenas.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a 106-page opinion, upheld Congress' broad investigative authority and ordered Deutsche Bank and Capital One's "prompt compliance" with the subpoenas, and gave Trump seven days to appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The majority remanded the case to a Manhattan U.S. district judge to implement procedures to protect some "sensitive personal information" and documents.

"The committees' interests in pursuing their constitutional legislative function is a far more significant public interest than whatever public interest inheres in avoiding the risk of a chief executive's distraction arising from disclosure of documents reflecting his private financial transactions," Judge Jon Newman wrote. Judge Peter Hall joined Newman in the majority.

Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney for Trump, said Trump's legal team considered the subpoenas "invalid as issued" and were considering a Supreme Court appeal.

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York in May acknowledged that the subpoenas for an array of Trump family financial records were "very broad," but denied the president's request to block their enforcement. That order, however, was stayed pending review by the Second Circuit.

Douglas Letter, general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, argued in August that the subpoenas were part of a broader effort to investigate money laundering and foreign influence on the U.S. government.

A total of 10 subpoenas, he said, had been handed out in connection with the probe, including some that went to banks that had "absolutely nothing to do" with Trump and his family.

An attorney for Trump responded that two House committees had exceeded their authority in usurping law enforcement functions that are reserved for the executive and legislative branches of government. Should the subpoenas be enforced, he argued, it could distract Trump from his ability to carry out his official duties as president.

But Newman on Tuesday found a valid legislative purpose behind the subpoenas that "substantially" outweighed any privacy interests raised by the president, and in his ruling, Newman referred to Trump as the lawsuit's "lead plaintiff" to clarify that the case only involved Trump "in his capacity as a private citizen."

"The protection sought is the protection from compelled disclosure alleged to be beyond the constitutional authority of the committees, a protection that, if validly asserted, would be available to any private individual," he wrote.

The subpoenas at issue touch on a broad range of financial documents, including checks, tax returns and account activity for Trump and his immediate family. Capital One in August informed the court that it did not have any of the president's tax returns, while Deutsche Bank said it had tax filings for two members of the Trump family but did not reveal the names.

The panel ordered that the district court give Trump time to identify "sensitive documents" that could possibly be excluded from the subpoenas. The committees would then be able to object to the potential exclusions, Newman said.

The ruling acknowledged an "irreparable" loss of privacy for the Trump family, but said they had not showed a "likelihood of success" on their arguments. The district court review process, the majority said, would help to mitigate some of the privacy concerns.

"In assessing the seriousness of that loss for purposes of determining the balance of hardships, we note that the loss will be somewhat mitigated to the extent that sensitive personal information and some documents will not be disclosed pursuant to the procedure we have ordered upon remand," Newman wrote.

In a partial dissent, Second Circuit Judge Debra A. Livingston, a Republican appointee, said she would have remanded the entire case to the district court "to examine the serious questions that the plaintiffs have raised."

Newman, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, served on the panel alongside Hall and Livingston, who were both placed on the court by President George W. Bush.

The appellate ruling was the second recently to reject Trump's attempts to block disclosure of Trump financial records. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month ordered Trump's longtime personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, to comply with the subpoena for eight years of his financial information, a decision that is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the opinion and order here:

Read More:

Congressional Subpoena to Banks Is Improper Law Enforcement, Trump Lawyer Argues

A Primer on Arguments Before the Second Circuit Over Congressional Subpoenas of Trump Records

SDNY Judge, Too, Finds Congress May Subpoena Banks in Probe of Trump's Finances