President Trump just suffered a setback in his war with the Democrats in Congress over his tax returns.
The Democrats will not take ‘no collision’ for an answer, even though they all agreed to abide by Mueller’s findings, and sued in federal court to get Trump’s financial records.
The ruling by a judge appointed by Barack Obama will be appealed by Trump. This will most probably end up in front of the Supreme Court.
From Politico: A federal judge upheld a congressional subpoena seeking President Donald Trump’s financial records from an accounting firm, dealing a blow to the president’s efforts to resist Democratic investigations.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling means that Mazars USA must comply with the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial records, though the president is certain to appeal the ruling.
The president filed suit last month to block the subpoena, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of congressional authority.
From Law.com: “Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress’s investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose.
To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which ‘legislation could be had,’ Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution,” Mehta wrote.
“Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars,” the judge added.
Mehta noted the committee’s contention that the subpoenaed materials would aid its consideration of “strengthening ethics and disclosure laws,” along with its monitoring of Trump’s compliance with the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses.
“These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations,” Mehta said.
The ruling is expected to be appealed by Trump’s attorneys, teeing up a fight that could go up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mehta on Monday refused to put his ruling on hold pending any appeal from Trump.
Consovoy McCarthy Park partners William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge represent the president in his personal capacity; Michael Best & Friedrich partner Stefan Passantino, a former Deputy White House counsel, represents the Trump organization and other Trump-related business entities which are also involved in the lawsuit.
Still, Mehta’s ruling delivers a key win to the Democratic majority in the U.S. House. The subpoena is just one of many the House has issued since Democrats took control of the chamber in January. The Trump administration has resisted those demands, setting up protracted court tussles between the two branches on multiple fronts.