Amy Howe

Dec 6 2019

Trump asks justices to block bank subpoenas (UPDATED)

UPDATED: Shortly after 6 p.m., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on hold until next Friday, December 13, at 5 p.m. Ginsburg’s order gives the justices time to rule on Trump’s request for a longer stay of the lower court’s decision while he files a petition for review. Ginsburg ordered the House of Representatives to file a response to Trump’s request by 11 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11. 

Yesterday President Donald Trump filed a petition at the Supreme Court asking the justices to quash a subpoena to Mazars, his longtime accounting firm, for his financial records. The case is Trump’s second request in less than a month for the court’s help in his battle to shield his financial records and tax documents. At their private conference next week, the justices are scheduled to consider Trump’s petition for review of a lower-court ruling that would require him to turn over tax records to Manhattan’s district attorney, who is seeking them as part of a grand-jury investigation. This afternoon Trump added a third filing, this time asking the justices to block a lower-court ruling that upheld subpoenas for Trump’s financial records to Deutsche Bank, which has long been Trump’s biggest lender, and Capital One.

Trump went to court after the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, seeking to block the subpoenas on the ground that they go beyond the committees’ powers. But on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit largely upheld the subpoenas and ordered the banks to begin providing the documents by December 10.

Today Trump came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to put the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on hold to give his lawyers time to file a petition for review of the decision. Trump complained that the committees had issued “dragnet” and “extraordinarily broad” subpoenas that do not serve the kind of “legitimate legislative purpose” that the Supreme Court has said is necessary. Instead, Trump wrote, the subpoenas are merely “an attempt to exercise executive power beyond Congress’s legislative reach and to expose” Trump’s “private records for the sake of exposure.” The questions before the Supreme Court, Trump concluded, are both significant and “straightforward”: “whether the President will be allowed to petition for review of an unprecedented demand for his personal papers, or whether he will be deprived of that opportunity because the Committees issued these subpoenas with no incentive to test their validity.”

Stressing the similarities between this case and the Mazars case, Trump urged the justices to follow their ruling in that case and put the 2nd Circuit’s decision on hold immediately (known as an “administrative stay”) until they can rule on his application for a stay, and then keep it on hold until he can file his petition for review. Without a stay, Trump warned, the banks will likely hand over the records, “irrevocably destroying” his “legal right to keep them confidential.”

Trump put the blame for today’s filing squarely on the House of Representatives. He explained to the justices that, as in the case involving the Manhattan district attorney, Trump had offered to file a petition for review quickly in exchange for an agreement to delay the enforcement of the subpoenas. However, Trump told the justices, the House declined his offer – even though the court had already put the enforcement of the subpoena in the Mazars case on hold. “Regrettably,” Trump concluded, it became necessary for him “to file another emergency application to keep [his] claims from being mooted.”

Trump’s request will go first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is responsible for emergency appeals from the 2nd Circuit. Ginsburg can either act on the application herself or (as is more likely) refer it to the full court.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
  • Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies