Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP (591 U.S. ___ (2020)) was a United States Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the United States House of Representatives to obtain tax returns of President Donald Trump, which Trump has litigated to prevent but which had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1] In a 7–2 decision issued on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court's decision, ruling that the court of appeal had not properly considered the separation of powers issues between Congress and the President, and remanded the case back for review. It held that courts must take into account separation of powers concerns in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president, and set out a number of factors for consideration in evaluating the worthiness of the such subpoena requests.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
Argued May 12, 2020
Decided July 9, 2020
Full case nameDonald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives
Docket no.19-715
Citations591 U.S. ___ (more)
140 S. Ct. 2019
Case history
PriorPreliminary injunction denied, Trump v. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, 380 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2019); affirmed, 940 F.3d 710, No. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019); rehearing en banc denied, (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019); stay granted, Application No. 19A545 (S. Ct. 2019); cert. granted, consolidated with Second Circuit's Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., No. 19-760 (S. Ct. 2019)[1]
Holding
The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
DissentThomas
DissentAlito

The Court said Trump v. Mazars raises questions of separation of powers rather than executive privilege. It said, however, that Congress needed a legislative reason to request documents of the President, such as tax returns, rather than conducting a criminal investigation, which is a power of the executive branch.[2]

Legal scholar Marty Lederman has described Mazars case as more important than the Trump v. Vance case. Lederman describes Trump's argument—that Congress entirely lacks "constitutional authority to investigate a sitting President's possible conflicts of interest and violations of law"—as an "alarming" assertion that, "would, if credited, be a radical departure from our constitutional history and tradition."[3]

Background
Main article: Tax returns of Donald Trump

In April 2019, three committees of the U.S. House of Representatives wanted to access the financial records of President Donald Trump, his children, and affiliated businesses. Regarding attempts at subpoenaing Trump directly as likely to be futile, they issued four subpoenas to third parties. The House Committee on Financial Services subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capital One seeking records related to foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements of net worth, tax returns, and suspicious activity identified by the bank. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for the same information.[4] The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP,[4][5] demanding financial information pertaining to Trump and several affiliated businesses. Although each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, each supplied different justifications for the requests, explaining that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U.S. elections.[4]

Mazars stated that it was willing to comply with the subpoena. Trump, in his personal capacity, sued Mazars to stop the firm providing the information sought, and the subpoena was blocked while the case wound its way through the courts, losing in the district court and on appeal.[5][4] On November 18, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to continue the block for a few days, ordering the House Counsel to submit a rebuttal by November 21, which he did.[5][6] In seeking a rapid subpoena ruling, House General Counsel Douglas Letter wrote, "The president certainly has no right to dictate the timetable by which third parties provide information that could potentially be relevant to that inquiry."[7]

D.C. Circuit

Circuit Judge David S. Tatel wrote the majority opinion of the District Circuit Court, which was joined by Circuit Judge Patricia Millett.[8] Circuit Judge Neomi Rao dissented, insisting that the impeachment power is the only legitimate method for such congressional investigations.[8]

On November 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit denied the Trump administration's petition for an en banc rehearing. Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Karen Henderson dissented from the denial of rehearing.[9]

Supreme Court

On November 25, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the D.C. Circuit's ruling extending the time for Trump to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to hear the case.[10] Trump's legal team filed the petition on December 5,[11] and on December 13, the Court granted certiorari and consolidated Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG with the Mazars case. The Court also granted ceriorari for Trump v. Vance, a similar challenge related to subpoenas for Trump's tax records but from the Manhattan District Attorney's office in relation to its ongoing investigation over payments made as part of the Stormy Daniels scandal.[1] The question facing the Court was whether the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to issue subpoenas, addressed to third parties, to obtain the private financial records of the president and/or his businesses.[12]

Oral arguments were originally scheduled to take place on March 31, 2020, but two weeks before the arguments were to take place, the Court postponed arguments in response to the coronavirus pandemic and waited one month to announce the rescheduled date. In April 2020, the Court said that oral argument in the Mazars case and the other cases would be heard by telephone.[13][14] Consolidated oral arguments for Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, as well as the linked Trump v. Vance, were heard on May 12.[15] In arguing against the need for subpoenas for tax returns, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall repeatedly cited that they presented "dangers of harassing and distracting and undermining the President".[16]

The Court issued its ruling on July 9, 2020. In the 7–2 decision, the Court vacated the decision of the D.C. Circuit that granted the subpoena and remanded the case for further review.[17] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority decision joined by all but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In the decision, Roberts wrote that the Circuit Court had not taken full account of the separation of powers in their decision, stating that neither the Congressional nor Presidential argument was wholly sound.[18][17] Roberts wrote, "The standards proposed by the president and the solicitor general — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities...The House's approach fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the president's information. Far from accounting for separation of powers concerns, the House's approach aggravates them by leaving essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the president's personal records. Any personal paper possessed by a president could potentially 'relate to' a conceivable subject of legislation, for Congress has broad legislative powers that touch a vast number of subjects."[18] The Chief Justice also noted that conflicts between Congress and the Executive regarding subpoena were resolved in the past by the two political branches of the U.S. federal government through the use of negotiation and compromise and without involvement by the Supreme Court.[17] Roberts recognized that the executive privilege is designed to safeguard presidential decision-making, but he also noted that the U.S. President does not have blanket immunity from records requests, because the protection caused by executive privilege “should not be transplanted root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations.”[17]

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, congressional subpoenas directed at the U.S. President and his personal papers demand careful scrutiny, “for they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the president and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage.”[19] In sending the case back to review, Roberts gave the court four considerations to determine whether the subpoenas were appropriate:[20][21][22][19]

  • Whether the legislative request warrants the involvement of the President, and if other sources can reasonably provide Congress the same information,
  • Whether the subpoena is no broader than reasonably necessary to support the legislative objective,
  • Whether the nature of evidence that is requested by the subpoena will advance a valid legislative purpose, and
  • Whether the subpoena burdens the President and may be a result from partisan politics.

Impact

The Supreme Court's decision in Mazars was generally considered favorable towards Trump from a political standpoint, even though the rulings in both Mazars and the associated Vance case could allow the tax returns to be subpoenaed.[23] The ruling did acknowledge that Congress has power to subpoena the president and his papers as part of the legislative process, but set limits to these requests, which could be challenged by the president and still prevent release of Trump's tax information. With the challenges to the House subpoenas being returned to the Circuit Court for review based on the four considerations set out by Roberts, these were unlikely to be resolved by the November 2020 presidential election. Trump's political opponents had hoped to have used the tax returns as part of their strategy in challenging Trump in the campaign prior to the election.[23] Further, Congressional subpoenas related to these cases will expire with the end of the 116th Congress on January 3, 2021.[24]

On September 27, 2020, The New York Times, through unnamed sources, reported on over two decades of tax information from Trump.[25] While the information created a significant discourse over the findings, it is not expected to impact Mazars or the New York Vance case.[26]

See also

References
  1. "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2020-06-26.
  2. Trump Not 'Immune' From Releasing Tax Returns, Supreme Court Rules
  3. Marty Lederman (November 25, 2019). "Understanding the Two Mazars Subpoena Cases Before the Supreme Court". Just Security.
  4. Roberts, John (July 9, 2020). "TRUMP ET AL. v. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  5. Higgins, Tucker; Pramuk, Jacob (November 18, 2019). "Supreme Court temporarily halts court order requiring accountants to turn over Trump's tax returns to Congress". NBC News. Archived from the original on November 19, 2019. Retrieved July 9, 2020.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. "House attorneys say Trump's tax returns are needed for impeachment inquiry". Los Angeles Times. November 22, 2019.
  7. Todd Ruger (November 21, 2019). "Democrats seek quick subpoena ruling in Trump tax records case". Roll Call.
  8. Trump v. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, 940 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
  9. Trump v. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, No. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019).
  10. 19A545 TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL. supremecourt.gov November 25, 2019
  11. Ariane de Vogue (December 5, 2019). "Trump asks Supreme Court to block House subpoena for financial documents and take up case". cnn.com. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  12. "Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  13. Totenberg, Nina (13 April 2020). "Supreme Court To Hear Arguments By Telephone, Including On Trump's Financial Records". NPR.org. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
  14. "Press Releases - April 13, 2020 - Supreme Court of the United States". SupremeCourt.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
  15. Honig, Elie (11 May 2020). "The stakes of Trump's tax return case couldn't be higher". CNN. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  16. Lederman, Marty (May 15, 2020). "Trump's DOJ Says the President Would Be "Undermined" if His Tax Records Were Revealed". Slate. Retrieved May 16, 2020.
  17. O'Brien, Timothy L. (July 9, 2020). "Politics & Policy: The Supreme Court Puts Trump in His Place". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  18. Williams, Pete (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court rules Trump will have to fight to keep secret his taxes, financial records". NBC News. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  19. Ryan, Tim (July 9, 2020). "High Court Roils White House With Punt on House Subpoenas". Courthouse News. Archived from the original on July 11, 2020. Retrieved July 11, 2020.
  20. "Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP - Slip Opinion" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  21. Sonam Sheth; Darren Samuelsohn (July 9, 2020). "Supreme Court rules against Trump in 2 landmark cases about his taxes and financial records". Business Insider. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  22. Ford, Matt (July 9, 2020). "The Supreme Court Brings the Presidency Back From a Lawless Brink". The New Republic. The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  23. "Trump taxes: Supreme Court says New York prosecutors can see records". BBC. July 9, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
  24. Stahl, Jeremy (2020-03-16). "The Coronavirus May Keep Trump's Financial Records Under Wraps Forever". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-03-17.
  25. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike (September 27, 2020). "Trump's Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 29, 2020.
  26. Lucas, Ryan (September 29, 2020). "Legal Fight Over Trump's Financial Records Grinds On Even As Tax Details Spill Out". NPR. Retrieved September 29, 2020.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.