READ: Judge Says House Dems Can Get Some Of Trump Tax Records

United States President Donald J. Trump talks with the media during an event to sign the Tax Cut and Reform Bill in the Oval Office at The White House in Washington, DC on December 22, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / Brendan SM... United States President Donald J. Trump talks with the media during an event to sign the Tax Cut and Reform Bill in the Oval Office at The White House in Washington, DC on December 22, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS

A federal judge partly upheld a subpoena that House Democrats issued for former president Trump’s tax records, ruling that a Supreme Court decision last year rendered portions of the subpoena unenforceable.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia ruled that Trump’s accountant, Mazars USA LLP, must turn over the former president’s tax records covering the years 2017 and 2018. The decision spans a period of time beginning when he entered office and concluding when the subpoena was issued.

But Mehta, relying on Supreme Court precedent, rejected the parts of the subpoena that asked for tax records going back to 2011.

It’s a ruling that leaves a Groundhog Day-like feeling: House Democrats have been litigating this subpoena, and others, since spring 2019.

At first, Mehta granted the subpoena in full, issuing a scathing opinion in May 2019 which found the request valid.

Trump’s attorneys appealed that decision up the chain. Last year, the Supreme Court created a new test for subpoenas issued by Congress, mandating that courts “take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information.”

Mehta, in issuing the Wednesday ruling, made explicit note of that requirement.

“The court cannot now go so far,” Mehta wrote, referring to his earlier ruling that upheld the subpoena in full.

He wrote that the House Oversight Committee, now chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), had not asserted an adequate legislative purpose for Trump’s personal and corporate financial records to justify the subpoena’s broad scope, under the Supreme Court’s new requirement.

The subpoena demanded information relating to three areas on which Congress could legislate: presidential conflicts of interest, oversight of federal leases with the Trump organization, and the Constitution’s Emoluments clause.

Mehta found that while the subpoena was valid as far as it asks Mazars for documents relating to federal leases and potential Emoluments violations, asking for records about conflicts of interest was too broad.

For conflicts of interest, Mehta ruled that the request was not necessary for Congress to consider legislation and that it threatened the separation of powers – imposing the Supreme Court’s new test.

“The more Congress can invade the personal sphere of a former President, the greater the leverage Congress would have on a sitting President,” the opinion reads. “And the greater the leverage, the greater the improper ‘institutional advantage,’ id. at 2036, Congress would possess over a co-equal branch of government.”

After two years of litigation, Trump’s attorneys can still appeal the ruling, as can the House.

Read the ruling here:

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriter:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: