Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2020 Supreme Court decision on subpoenas

2020 United States Supreme Court case

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a landmark US Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump , who had litigated against his personal accounting firm to prevent this disclosure, although the committees had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . Mazars was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG (591 U.S. ___, docket 19-760).

In a 7–2 decision issued on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court held that courts must take into account separation of powers in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking the personal information of the president, and set out four factors (described as non-exhaustive) to consider in evaluating the worthiness of such subpoena requests. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court had not properly considered the separation of powers concerns; it vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for review. The Supreme Court decided that the case raised questions of separation of powers, rather than executive privilege . It also noted that to request presidential documents like tax returns, Congress needs a legislative reason and may not conduct a criminal investigation, which is a power of the executive branch. Before the lower court reviewed the case, the subpoenas in question expired with the end of the 116th Congress on January 3, 2021, and on February 23, 2021, the House Committee in the 117th Congress reissued the subpoena to Mazars for the same documents it had previously sought.

Legal scholar Marty Lederman described Mazars as more important than _Trump v. Vance _, which was decided the same day. Lederman described Trump's argument that Congress entirely lacks "constitutional authority to investigate a sitting President's possible conflicts of interest and violations of law" as an "alarming" assertion that "would, if credited, be a radical departure from our constitutional history and tradition."

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Mazars_USA,_LLP&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Main articles: List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump , Tax returns of Donald Trump , and Trump v. Vance

In April 2019, three committees of the US House of Representatives wanted to access the financial records of US President Donald Trump , his children, and affiliated businesses. They regarded attempts at subpoenaing Trump directly as likely to be futile and so issued four subpoenas to third parties. The House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One to seek records related to foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by the banks.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for the same information. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA , LLP,

demanding financial information pertaining to Trump and several affiliated businesses. Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, all of them supplied different justifications for the requests and explained that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in US elections.

Lower courts

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Mazars_USA,_LLP&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Lower courts")
]

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Mazars_USA,_LLP&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP")
]

Mazars was willing to comply with the subpoena, but Trump, in his personal capacity, sued Mazars to stop the firm from providing the information sought. The subpoena was stayed while the case wound its way through the courts. Trump lost both in the district court and on appeal,

and Trump appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , on July 12, 2019, Trump said he was suing to prevent Mazars from complying with the subpoena and argued that the Committee's investigation into his financial records served no legitimate legislative purpose. On October 11, 2019, Judge David S. Tatel wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Patricia Millett , dismissing Trump's arguments. Judge Neomi Rao dissented, saying that the impeachment power is the only legitimate method for such congressional investigations.

On November 13, 2019, the DC Court of Appeals denied Trump's petition for an _en banc _ rehearing 7-3; Gregory Katsas , Neomi Rao , and Karen Henderson dissenting.

On Trump's appeal, on November 18, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to continue the stay for a few days and ordered the House Counsel to submit a rebuttal by November 21, which was done.

House General Counsel Douglas Letter , in seeking a rapid subpoena ruling, 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."

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Mazars_USA,_LLP&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG")
]

The case has had multiple stages of movement through lower courts before being presented for arguments to the US Supreme Court:

• Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 943 F. 3d 627 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019

• Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F. 3d 146 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019

• Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 140 S. Ct. 660 - Supreme Court 2019

The case was argued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Edgardo Ramos on May 22, 2019, who ruled against Trump and ordered the banks to comply with the subpoenas. Trump appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit . While the appeal was pending, Capital One submitted a letter to the court that it did not have any documents falling under the purview of the subpoena, but Deutsche Bank filed a letter stating otherwise. The court heard oral arguments on August 23, 2019.

The Deutsche Bank letter had two names redacted; an unredacted copy of the letter was also submitted [unde

…