House Democrats reissued a subpoena for former President Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm, continuing their court fight for access to Trump’s tax returns, even though President Biden is in office, and the presiding judge said the battle would continue into June or beyond.
The House Oversight Committee sent a subpoena to Mazars USA in late February, court records show, as Democrats seek business information on the former president. A similar subpoena had been issued in April 2019, with Trump’s lawyers taking the fight to the Supreme Court while he was president, ultimately stymieing efforts by Democrats to get their hands on the Trump Organization’s financials.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office obtained Trump’s tax returns in February, however, when its subpoena to Mazars was successfully enforced, and Democrats on Capitol Hill want access to the records too.
Judge Amit Mehta, appointed to the U.S. District Court for D.C. by former President Barack Obama in 2014, is overseeing the case as Democrats seek the accounting firm records and Trump’s lawyers push back. After a hearing Thursday morning, Mehta scheduled legal briefs for the coming weeks and arguments to be held on June 18.
Trump’s legal team argued Thursday it was unfair for the House to base its investigation on Trump’s former role as president and for the Democrats to argue simultaneously the subpoena should not be held to a presidential standard in court.
The House lawyer said Democrats believed the subpoena met the high standards that the Supreme Court laid out for presidents still in office.
Mehta asked whether the Supreme Court decision from last June was still relevant since Trump was no longer president and the subpoena was now aimed at a private citizen. Trump’s lawyers indicated they believed separation of powers issues remained even though Trump is no longer president, but Democrats seemed to contend that the standards are lower now that Trump is out of office.
How the Supreme Court’s legal test is applied will be key in how the judge eventually rules, and it is possible this case may end up at appeals courts or even the high court again.
The new Democratic subpoena was issued to Mazars in late February and was revealed in court records this week as part of a joint status report by House Democrats and the Trump team. The subpoena requests all statements of financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports, and independent auditor’s reports put together by Mazars, along with all underlying financial documents, and also asked for access to all of the firm’s communications with the Trump Organization.
The requested time frame is from 2011 to 2018, with Democrats initially asking for production by March 11, though that was paused amid the court battle.
Democratic Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney of New York explained her reasoning for still pursuing the records in a late February letter, saying, “For more than 22 months, the Committee has been denied key information needed to inform legislative action to address the once-in-a-generation ethics crisis created by former President Trump’s unprecedented conflicts of interest.”
“The Committee’s need for this information — in order to verify key facts and tailor legislative reforms to be as effective and efficient as possible — remains just as compelling now as it was when the Committee first issued its subpoena, and the Committee’s legislative efforts remain just as critical to the American people as they were before President Trump vacated the White House.”
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the Democrats in 2020 and said the case would be sent back to the lower courts for further consideration.
“The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information,” the Supreme Court ruled, adding, “the approach proposed by the House, which relies on precedents that did not involve the President’s papers, fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information. The House’s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records. A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense.”
Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance had more luck at the Supreme Court, when, in another 7-2 decision, it ruled that “Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.”
“This is all a political prosecution,” Trump tweeted after that ruling. “I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!”
The Supreme Court shot down Trump’s legal block again in February, and Vance obtained Trump’s records the same month.
Filings obtained by the district attorney reportedly contain millions of pages of documents related to Trump’s tax returns from January 2011 to August 2019. Vance’s pursuit of Trump’s records is part of an extensive inquiry into the former president’s real estate properties.
Trump sued the district attorney and Mazars in federal court to block the enforcement of the subpoena, arguing that it violated the separation of powers in the Constitution. He also called the inquiry a “continuation of the witch hunt.” Despite the district attorney now having access to Trump’s records, public release is governed by grand jury secrecy rules.
