U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared divided over President Donald Trump’s bid to prevent Democratic-led congressional panels from obtaining his financial records but seemed more sympathetic toward a New York prosecutor’s attempt to access similar records.
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared divided over President Donald Trump’s bid to prevent Democratic-led congressional panels from obtaining his financial records but seemed more sympathetic toward a New York prosecutor’s attempt to access similar records.
The nine justices wrapped up two oral arguments lasting about three hours and 20 minutes in a major showdown over presidential powers.
The justices asked tough questions of an attorney for Trump and a Justice Department lawyer who both sought to justify a refusal to comply with subpoenas by three House of Representatives committees for the financial records. But the justices also pressed a lawyer for the House to explain why the subpoenas were not simply harassment of the Republican president.
Three months after Trump avoided removal from office in a Senate impeachment trial, Trump’s lawyers want the Supreme Court to endorse their expansive view of presidential powers that would severely limit the ability of Congress to carry out oversight of presidents and of prosecutors to investigate them.
The nine justices heard an oral argument lasting more than 90 minutes by teleconference over attempts by congressional committees to obtain the records in a pair of cases that test the authority of Congress to conduct oversight of the president.
Trump has sought to block enforcement of subpoenas by the committees seeking his financial records from Mazars LLP, his longtime accounting firm, and two banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
The justices asked the House’s lawyer whether Congress should be limited in issuing subpoenas so as to not distract a president or frustrate the carrying out of his official duties.
The justices then opened an oral argument in a third case that involved Trump’s bid to block enforcement of a New York City prosecutor’s subpoena for his financial records. Lower courts in Washington and New York ruled against Trump in all three cases.
The third case concerns a subpoena issued to Mazars for similar information, including tax returns, as part of a grand jury investigation into Trump being conducted b