D.C. Circuit Judge Judith Rogers. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has again rejected an attorney's effort to get President Donald Trump to provide more information on his financial disclosure form.

Attorney Jeffrey Lovitky has spent several years in D.C. federal court challenging Trump's financial disclosure reports filed with the Office of Government Ethics. The D.C. Circuit initially ruled against him in 2019, finding it couldn't order the president to amend forms he filed as a candidate.

Lovitky sued again in 2019, over Trump's 2018 and 2019 financial disclosure forms. He argued that, because the president's personal and corporate liabilities are not differentiated on the form, it prevents him from being able to determine whether Trump has any potential conflicts of interests and harms him as a voter.

In a unanimous opinion on Tuesday, Judge Judith Rogers repeatedly referred to the D.C. Circuit's prior ruling against Lovitky, writing: "Just like in Lovitky's prior appeal, the court begins—and ends—its analysis with subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Lovitky 'lacks the clear right to relief based on a clear duty to act that is necessary to obtain mandamus relief.'"

Rogers, in the opinion joined by Judge Patria Millett and Senior Judge A. Raymond Randolph, said in order to advance the case, Lovitky "must have plausibly alleged that the Ethics Act, once interpreted, imposed a clear and indisputable duty on President Trump to differentiate personal from business liabilities."

However, the opinion notes that the Ethics in Government Act, which Lovitky alleged Trump was violating, does not block filers from providing more information than required, as Trump had on his form.

"Given the threat of civil penalties and criminal prosecution, a cautious filer, or one with complicated financial holdings, may want to err on the side of over-disclosure. In addition, there are plausible reasons why Congress may have written the statute to not forbid, or at least allow, inclusion of liabilities that are not required to be disclosed," the opinion reads.

The opinion did acknowledge that there may be potential issues with the act, after the court presented a hypothetical during oral arguments in December on what would happen if an individual included the liabilities of friends and family on the form "to willfully obscure the debts the statute requires to be disclosed."

"The court need not resolve how it would handle this hypothetical situation, however, because Lovitky has not alleged that it is presented here. But Lovitky has highlighted a potential for mischief," the opinion reads. "Although the courts lack jurisdiction to order the relief Lovitky seeks, he may, of course, use the political process to press for legislative or regulatory reforms."

Lovitky said after Tuesday's ruling that he was "quite disappointed that the court did not address the standing issue. I thought it was something they would have done."

He said he has not made a decision on any future action he might take in the litigation.

Lovitky's lawsuits had raised questions in other cases against the president about the kinds of legal challenges Trump could face while in office.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had stayed in August a lawsuit against Trump by ex-White House aide Cliff Sims until the D.C. Circuit ruled in Lovitky's case or Democratic lawmaker's Emoluments Clause lawsuit against Trump. But the Sims lawsuit was dismissed at the parties' request in December, and the D.C. Circuit also threw out the Democrats' challenge last week.