Appeals court rules against Trump over financial records
WASHINGTON — Congress can seek eight years of President Donald Trump’s business records from his accounting firm, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled Friday in one of several legal battles over access to the president’s financial data.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld Congress’ broad investigative powers and rejected the president’s bid to block law- makers from subpoenaing the documents.
That panel’s ruling is a significant victory for the Democrat-led House, but it will not result in the House obtaining Trump’s tax returns — at least, not immediately.
The House agreed to hold off on enforcing the subpoenas while Trump’s appeal is pending. Trump could keep it pending for weeks or months by appealing the case to the full D.C. Circuit.
The case is one of several clashes between the House and the Republican president over Trump’s data that are expected to reach the Supreme Court.
In this case, the judges ruled that Trump’s arguments — that the subpoenas were invalid because Congress lacked a “legitimate legislative purpose” for them — were incorrect.
“Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett wrote for the court. Both were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The president was appealing a lower court’s decision that allowed the House Oversight Committee to move forward with its request for financial statements and audits prepared for Trump and his companies by the accounting firm Mazars USA.
The House sought these records months before the beginning of its recent impeachment inquiry, related to Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden.
This case, instead, was prompted by testimony from Trump’s former “fixer,” attorney Michael Cohen, that Trump had exaggerated his wealth to seek loans.
Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DCalif., celebrated the appeals ruling.
In a letter to fellow House Democrats, Pelosi called it “a major victory.”
“This week, we have seen increased outside validation of our efforts to hold the President accountable and these statements speak to the heart of the Constitutional challenge that we face,” Pelosi wrote.
The dissenting judge in Friday’s ruling, Neomi Rao — appointed by Trump — said that if the House wants to investigate possible wrongdoing by the president, it should do so by invoking its constitutional impeachment powers, not its oversight powers.
“Throughout our history, Congress, the President, and the courts have insisted upon maintaining the separation between the legislative and impeachment powers of the House and recognized the gravity and accountability that follow impeachment,” Rao said. “Allowing the Committee to issue this subpoena for legislative purposes would turn Congress into a roving inquisition over a co-equal branch of government.”
Rao said Congress has the power to investigate private individuals.
But, she said, that power did not extend to the president in the same way because the Constitution has created impeachment as a mechanism to investigate him.
Allowing Congress to act otherwise disrupts the Constitution’s separation of powers, Rao said, permitting it “to expand its control over the other branches.”
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said Rao’s dissent seemed designed as a road map for conservative justices on the Supreme Court.