Trump v. Mazars

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
  • Date Filed: December 13, 2019
  • Case #: 19-715
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: 940 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
  • Full Text Opinion

Whether the House Committee has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this subpoena.

This petition has been consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank. The cases arose out of separate investigations into President Trump’s financial records. The Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives issued a subpoena to President Trump’s accounting firm in an attempt to verify witness testimony and determine whether the President engaged in illegal conduct before or during office and that he is complying with the Emoluments Clause, among other objectives. In Deutsche Bank, the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued Respondents subpoenas for financial records to investigate potential money laundering and other financial crimes. In each case, President Trump filed suit to challenge the subpoenas and filed preliminary injunctions. The filings were treated as summary judgment motions and the court denied a stay pending appeal. On appeal, the subpoenas were upheld as constitutional. In Deutsche Bank, President Trump applied to the Supreme Court pending a motion to recall and stay the mandate in the Second Circuit. In both cases the President argues that there are important separation of powers issues raised by the subpoenas. President Trump argues that the courts below improperly upheld them because the subpoenas lack statutory authority and that the records sought do not serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The President argues that the subpoenas are a part of an attempted law enforcement investigation and not within the scope of a legislative purpose.

Advanced Search

Back to Top