U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to speak about the coronavirus disease management test plan (COVID-19) at the White House’s Rose Garden in Washington, September 28, 2020.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
A federal appeals court on Wednesday started a legal battle over President Donald Trump’s financial statements to a lower court, further delaying efforts by House Democrats to obtain years of President’s personal and business records.
In its decision, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned a previous district court judgment and aligned with a Supreme Court ruling over the summer that ordered lower courts to consider issues more carefully. about the separation of powers within the case.
Two of these appellate judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and one was appointed by Trump.
The 2019 House Oversight and Reform Committee issued an eight-year subpoena to the Trump records of the accounting firm Mazars USA. The Democratic majority on the panel said they sought the records as part of their legislative and oversight functions, and as part of ongoing investigations.
Trump’s lawyers tried to block the disclosure of the records, arguing that Congress was involved in a fishing expedition to undermine him politically.
A US district court judge and federal appeals panel had previously confirmed the subpoena. But the Supreme Court in July raised concerns about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.
In their brief decision on Wednesday, the appellate judges noted that “they express no opinion on whether this case will become debatable when the subpoena expires or on the merits of the parties’ arguments”.
The supervisory panel said that President Carolyn Maloney, DN.Y., intends to reissue the subpoena to Mazars at the beginning of the next Congress.
“It remains extremely important that the Supervisory Committee – and the Chamber more broadly – be able to guarantee the immediate execution of the subpoena without the risk that investigative subjects will frustrate their efforts through delays in litigation,” said the lawyer from the committee to the appeals court in early December.
A spokeswoman for the Supervisory Committee did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the appellate court’s judgment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.