Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

In April 2019, three committees of the U.S. House of Representatives wanted to access the financial records of President Donald Trump, his children, and affiliated businesses. Regarding attempts at subpoenaing Trump directly as likely to be futile, they issued four subpoenas to third parties. The House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking records related to foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by the bank. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for the same information.[4] The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP,[4][5] demanding financial information pertaining to Trump and several affiliated businesses. Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, each supplied different justifications for the requests, explaining that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U.S. elections.[4]

Mazars stated that it was willing to comply with the subpoena. Trump, in his personal capacity, sued Mazars to stop the firm providing the information sought, and the subpoena was blocked while the case wound its way through the courts, losing in the district court and on appeal.[5][4] On November 18, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to continue the block for a few days, ordering the House Counsel to submit a rebuttal by November 21, which he did.[5][6] In seeking a rapid subpoena ruling, House General Counsel Douglas Letter wrote, "The president certainly has no right to dictate the timetable by which third parties provide information that could potentially be relevant to that inquiry."[7]

Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote the majority opinion of the District Circuit Court, which was joined by Circuit Judge Patricia Millett.[8] Circuit Judge Neomi Rao dissented, insisting that the impeachment power is the only legitimate method for such congressional investigations.[8]

On November 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit denied the Trump administration's petition for an en banc rehearing. Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Karen Henderson dissented from the denial of rehearing.[9]

On November 25, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the D.C. Circuit's ruling extending the time for Trump to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to hear the case.[10] Trump's legal team filed the petition on December 5,[11] and on December 13, the Court granted certiorari and consolidated Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG with the Mazars case. The Court also granted ceriorari for Trump v. Vance, a similar challenge related to subpoenas for Trump's tax records but from the Manhattan District Attorney's office in relation to its ongoing investigation over payments made as part of the Stormy Daniels scandal.[1] The question facing the Court was whether the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to issue subpoenas, addressed to third parties, to obtain the private financial records of the president and/or his businesses.[12]

Oral arguments were originally scheduled to take place on March 31, 2020, but two weeks before the arguments were to take place, the Court postponed arguments in response to the coronavirus pandemic and waited one month to announce the rescheduled date. In April 2020, the Court said that oral argument in the Mazars case and the other cases would be heard by telephone.[13][14] Consolidated oral arguments for Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, as well as the linked Trump v. Vance, were heard on May 12.[15] In arguing against the need for subpoenas for tax returns, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall repeatedly cited that they presented "dangers of harassing and distracting and undermining the President".[16]

The Court issued its ruling on July 9, 2020. In the 7–2 decision, the Court vacated the decision of the D.C. Circuit that granted the subpoena and remanded the case for further review.[17] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority decision joined by all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In the decision, Roberts wrote that the Circuit Court had not taken full account of the separation of powers in their decision, stating that neither the Congressional nor Presidential argument was wholly sound.[18][17] Roberts wrote, "The standards proposed by the president and the solicitor general — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities...The House's approach fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the president's information. Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House's approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the president's personal records. Any personal paper possessed by a president could potentially 'relate to' a conceivable subject of legislation, for Congress has broad legislative powers that touch a vast number of subjects."[18] The Chief Justice also noted that conflicts between Congress and the Executive regarding subpoena were resolved in the past by the two political branches of the U.S. federal government through the use of negotiation and compromise and without involvement by the Supreme Court.[17] Roberts recognized that the executive privilege is designed to safeguard presidential decision-making, but he also noted that the U.S. President does not have blanket immunity from records requests, because the protection caused by executive privilege “should not be transplanted root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations.”[17]

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, congressional subpoenas directed at the U.S. President and his personal papers demand careful scrutiny, “for they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the president and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage.”[19] In sending the case back to review, Roberts gave the court four considerations to determine whether the subpoenas were appropriate:[20][21][22][19]

• Whether the legislative request warrants the involvement of the President, and if other sources can reasonably provide Congress the same information,
• Whether the subpoena is no broader than reasonably necessary to support the legislative objective,
• Whether the nature of evidence that is requested by the subpoena will advance a valid legislative purpose, and
• Whether the subpoena burdens the President and may be a result from partisan politics.

The Supreme Court's decision in Mazars was generally considered favorable towards Trump from a political standpoint, even though the rulings in both Mazars and the associated Vance case could allow the tax returns to be subpoenaed.[23] The ruling did acknowledge that Congress has power to subpoena the president and his papers as part of the legislative process, but set limits to these requests, which could be challenged by the president and still prevent release of Trump's tax information. With the challenges to the House subpoenas being returned to the Circuit Court for review based on the four considerations set out by Roberts, these were unlikely to be resolved by the November 2020 presidential election. Trump's political opponents had hoped to have used the tax returns as part of their strategy in challenging Trump in the campaign prior to the election.[23] Further, Congressional subpoenas related to these cases will expire with the end of the 116th Congress on January 3, 2021.[24]

On September 27, 2020, The New York Times, through unnamed sources, reported on over two decades of tax information from Trump.[25] While the information created a significant discourse over the findings, it is not expected to impact Mazars or the New York Vance case.[26]

• Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary
• Tax March
• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

• Grewal, Amandeep S. (2020). "The President's Tax Returns". George Mason Law Review. 27: __. SSRN 3381974.

• Text of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from:  Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  Supreme Court (slip opinion) 
• Text of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-5142 (2019) is available from:  D.C. Circuit (slip opinion)