Rule of Law

Committee on Ways & Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury

In Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether the Department of the Treasury should comply with the House Committee on Ways and Means’ request to produce former President Trump’s and his businesses’ tax returns.

Case Summary

Under federal law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, “[u]pon written request,” furnish the Committee on Ways and Means with “any [tax] return or [tax] return information.”  Exercising this authority, Committee Chairman Richard Neal requested in April 2019 that the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provide the Committee with then-President Donald Trump’s individual tax returns and the tax returns of eight of Trump’s businesses from 2013 through 2018.  The Committee requested this information as part of its investigative work as it considered the need for new legislation.

Then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin denied that request, and the Committee filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  In June 2021, the Committee issued a new request for the same tax information from 2015 through 2020.  That request reiterated and expanded on the Committee’s previously stated rationales, including the need to review the IRS’s mandatory audit program, under which “individual income tax returns of a President are subject to mandatory examination.”

Trump and his businesses intervened in this case, arguing that these requests serve no legitimate legislative purpose and instead aim to achieve political goals.  CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the district court arguing that the Committee’s requests are valid and that, if accepted, Trump and his businesses’ arguments would drastically cabin the scope of Congress’s authority to investigate, thereby undermining Congress’s ability to fulfill its institutional role in our system of government.

On December 14, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected former President Trump’s attempt to block the House Committee from obtaining his tax returns. Trump subsequently appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On February 7, 2022, CAC filed another amicus brief in support of the Committee’s request, urging the court to affirm the decision below.

First, our brief described the long history of legislative investigations in the British Parliament and early American Congresses.  As early as 1792, Congress asked for records from the Washington Administration as part of its investigation of a military defeat, and numerous members of Congress—including James Madison and other Framers—voted in favor of the inquiry.  That investigation was only the first of many investigations that Congress has conducted through the years.

Second, consistent with this long history of congressional investigations, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed Congress’s broad power to investigate, and it has reiterated that the scope of that power is coextensive with the scope of Congress’s power to legislate.  For instance, the Supreme Court has held that Congress’s power to investigate encompasses “inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes” and “surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.”

Next, our brief argued that the Ways and Means Committee’s broad power to access tax information for investigatory purposes is consistent with the history of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f)(1), the provision of federal law that authorizes it to request tax information from the Treasury Department.  Congress passed Section 6103 and its predecessors specifically to ensure that certain congressional committees could access return information relevant to their investigations and oversight efforts.

Finally, our brief argued that the Committee is entitled to the records it is seeking.  It responded to Trump’s argument that the Committee’s request implicates separation of powers concerns by explaining why any such concerns are significantly lessened now that the request pertains to a former president.  It also explained that the request at issue in this case fall well within Congress’s investigatory authority.  The Committee’s written request made clear that the documents would aid the Committee’s investigations into, among other things, the need to amend or extend the nation’s tax laws, as well as the need to enact new legislation on the IRS’s presidential audit program and ways to address presidential conflicts of interest and business entanglements.

In August 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the Treasury Department must comply with the Ways and Means Committee’s request. The Court concluded that the request was a valid exercise of Congress’s investigatory powers and did not violate the separation of powers.

On November 22, 2022, the Supreme Court denied a request by Trump that the Court stay the D.C. Circuit decision pending resolution of a cert petition, clearing the way for the House to receive the tax records.

Case Timeline

  • September 15, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    D.D.C. Amicus Br.
  • September 28, 2021

    Trump files Answer and Amended Crossclaim

  • October 28, 2021

    Court denies pending motions to dismiss as moot

  • October 12, 2021

    House and IRS file new motions to dismiss

  • October 18, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    D.D.C Amicus Br.
  • November 16, 2021

    D.D.C. hears oral argument

  • December 14, 2021

    D.D.C. dismisses the case

  • February 7, 2022

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    D.C. Cir. Amicus Br.
  • March 24, 2022

    D.C. Circuit hears oral argument

  • August 9, 2022

    D.C. Circuit issues its decision

  • November 22, 2022

    SCOTUS denies Trump’s application for stay on mandate

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
November 30, 2022

Garland praises Oath Keepers verdict, won’t say where Jan. 6 probe goes

The Washington Post
Justice Dept. will weigh seditious conspiracy conviction in deciding whether to pursue other high-profile Trump...
By: Praveen Fernandes, By Perry Stein, Spencer S. Hsu, and Devlin Barrett
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Biden v. Nebraska

In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court is considering whether to allow the Biden Administration’s student debt-relief program to go into effect.
Rule of Law
November 22, 2022

RELEASE: With Supreme Court Action, Trump Tax Records Should Be Turned Over to House Ways and Means Committee Without Delay

WASHINGTON, DC – On news that the Supreme Court denied former President Trump’s application for...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
November 9, 2022

RELEASE: Justices Skeptical of ICWA Challengers’ Broad Anti-Commandeering Argument

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Haaland v....
By: Smita Ghosh
Rule of Law
November 2, 2022

Originalism Demands Only One Answer in the Supreme Court’s Big Elections Case

Slate
Moore v. Harper, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7, has...
By: David H. Gans
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Moore v. Harper

In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Elections Clause prevents a state court from enforcing voting rights guarantees enshrined in a state constitution to limit a state legislature’s regulation of congressional...