Attorneys for President Donald Trump argued in a court filing Monday that a Manhattan grand jury's subpoena of his tax records was a "wildly overbroad" and bad-faith attempt to harass the president.

The filing laid out Trump's constitutional arguments for nixing the 2018 subpoena of Trump's accounting firm Mazars, after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month rejected, in a 7-2 vote, the president's claim that he was immune from state prosecution.

The high court's ruling, however, opened the door for Trump and his Consovoy McCarthy attorneys to "raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote.

In an amended complaint Monday, William Consovoy argued that the subpoena sought information from Trump organization businesses well beyond the jurisdiction of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. According to the filing, Vance had "duplicated" a "sweeping" demand by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, who had subpoenaed Trump's business records but stopped short of asking for his tax returns.

Both the scope and the grand jury subpoena and Vance's decision to issue it amounted to "harassment of the President in violation of his legal rights, including those held under Article II of the Constitution," Consovoy argued in the 16-page filing.

"The District Attorney issued a grand-jury subpoena he knew was overbroad and sought irrelevant records," the filing said.

"This is not a straightforward request to review specific business transitions; it is an overreaching demand designed to pick apart the President and each related entity from the inside out, without regard to the geographic limits of the District Attorney's jurisdiction or the scope of the grand jury's investigation," Consovoy continued.

In the filing, Consovoy argued that Vance's jurisdiction was limited to enforcing state criminal laws within New York County. However, the requested information, he said, touched "every facet of the business and financial affairs of the President," from entities across the U.S. and abroad.

"Simply put," Consovoy said, "it asks for everything."

Carey Dunne, general counsel for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, has argued that Senior U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who is overseeing the case, has already rejected similar arguments from Trump and argued that the president stands "in nearly the same situation with any other individual" as to their private papers.

Vance's office has until Aug. 3 to either answer the amended complaint or move to dismiss it. Briefing on any motion is expected to wrap by Aug. 14.

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 earlier this month.

Trump is also represented by Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff and Alan S. Futerfas in New York.

READ MORE: