Rule of Law

Supreme Court sets March 2020 arguments on Trump financial records

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear arguments on an effort by President Donald Trump to prevent Congress and investigators in New York from using subpoenas to access his tax, banking, and other financial records, items which the President has fought to keep from being released.

Lower courts had ordered Mazar’s, the President’s accounting firm, and two major banks, Deutche Bank and Capital One, to turn over financial records – those orders will stay on hold until the cases are resolved before the High Court.

Attorneys for the President have lost at every level in state and federal court in all three cases, making the argument that Congress does not need Mr. Trump’s financial information for any legitimate legislative purpose, casting it as a fishing expedition.

The subpoenas were not to sent to the President – but rather to Mazar’s, Deutche Bank, and Capital One – making the case somewhat different than a simple subpoena to Mr. Trump.

“Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,” a three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote earlier this year in the Mazars case. 

“We affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee and against the Trump Plaintiffs,” the judges added.

With the arguments in March of 2020, that timing would suggest that a final decision could be one of the biggest cases to be decided in the 2019-2020 term – possibly being saved for late June, when the Court ends its work before a summer break.

That would put the results squarely into the midst of the 2020 campaign for the White House.

As for why the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, a number of legal experts said the Justices could have done that as a favor to President Trump – not necessarily indicating that Mr. Trump is going to prevail.

“These cases involve the President and his tax returns, and they may have felt no choice but to take the cases and decide them on the merits given their political importance,” said Ashwin Phatak, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Walsh

In Allstates v. Walsh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering whether OSHA’s statutory authority to establish workplace safety standards is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Rule of Law
January 26, 2023

White House Under Pressure to Develop a ‘Plan B’ on Student Debt

Bloomberg News
WASHINGTON (TNS) — The Biden administration is under pressure from Capitol Hill lawmakers and student...
By: Smita Ghosh, By Nancy Cook and Akayla Gardne
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James

In National Shooting Sports Foundation v. James, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether a New York gun regulation violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
Rule of Law
January 16, 2023

Supreme Court’s 2 cases on Biden student loan forgiveness plan will begin in February

The Daily Orange
Oral arguments for Department of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska will begin in the U.S. Supreme Court...
Rule of Law
January 10, 2023

HEROES Act at Center of Debt-Relief Legal Fight

Inside Higher ED
Executive overreach or legal use of statutory authority? That will be a key question for...
By: Smita Ghosh, by Katherine Knott
Rule of Law
January 11, 2023

RELEASE: Statutory Text and History Make Clear that the Student Debt Relief Plan Is Authorized by the HEROES Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Amicus Brief on Behalf of Former Representative George Miller Argues

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) filed a brief at the...
By: Smita Ghosh