The U.S. Department of Justice filed documents Wednesday in an ongoing legal battle for President Donald Trump's tax returns, which were subpoenaed by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in August.

U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Joshua Garner argued that it is "correct and important" for Trump's subpoena challenge to move forward in federal court and not state court. Vance's lawyers have repeatedly said a state subpoena should be challenged in state court.

Garner, who is assigned to the federal programs branch of the Justice Department's civil division, wrote that his office supports "interim relief as necessary to allow for appropriate briefing of the weighty constitutional issues involved." The court schedule should allow time for "considered deliberation," he wrote.

Trump's legal team has requested an injunction prohibiting Vance from enforcing the subpoena and prohibiting Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, from complying with it.

In a filing late Sept. 24, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman wrote to support a temporary restraining order while he and his colleagues decided whether to participate in the case, given the constitutional issues raised by the president.

After an initial hearing Sept. 25, U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York laid out the timeline for the U.S. Attorney's Office response and told lawyers for Trump and Vance to try to work out a plan on their own.

Vance's office has agreed not to enforce the subpoena until 1 p.m. Oct. 7 or 1 p.m. the day that falls two business days after Marrero rules on pending motions, whichever is sooner.

Some of the points Garner made in his filing were similar to arguments made by Trump's lawyers in their complaint. Garner wrote that the president's job is unique and its demands unceasing.

The fact that the recipient of the subpoena was Trump's accounting firm and not the president is immaterial, Garner wrote.

Garner asserted that comity between state and federal courts is a two-way street.

"A proper understanding of comity requires a federal court in these circumstances to exercise its jurisdiction rather than abstain," he wrote.

Read More: