Advertisement
Supported by
Court Rejects Trump’s Appeal in Fight to Keep Financial Records From Congress
The decision almost certainly paves the way for a major Supreme Court case over President Trump’s stonewalling of congressional oversight efforts.
WASHINGTON — A full federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to take up President Trump’s appeal of an earlier ruling that his accounting firm must comply with a House committee’s demands and turn over eight years of his financial records.
In the latest of a string of court losses for Mr. Trump over his uncompromising vow to fight “all” subpoenas from Congress, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his request that it rehear a case in which he challenged the subpoena to the firm, Mazars USA.
Mr. Trump is virtually certain to now appeal to the Supreme Court, potentially adding another blockbuster case over separation of powers to its current term.
Lawyers representing Mr. Trump had argued that Congress had no legitimate legislative authority to seek his business records because the committee seeking them was trying to determine whether he broke existing laws — not weighing whether to enact a new one.
A three-judge appeals court panel in October rejected that sweeping argument and upheld Congress’s authority to issue the subpoena by a 2-to-1 vote. But Mr. Trump petitioned the full court to erase that ruling and reconsider the case. The court on Wednesday rejected his request, 8 to 3.
The eight judges in the majority included seven appointed by Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. One, Judge Thomas Griffith, was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican.
The three judges who dissented were all appointed by Republican presidents: both of Mr. Trump’s appointees on the bench, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, the latter of whom had been the dissenting vote in the earlier panel decision. The third was a judge appointed by President George Bush, Karen L. Henderson.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Advertisement
No comments:
Post a Comment