DOJ Tells Supreme Court to Rule in Trumps Favor in Fight Over Tax Returns

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in support of President Donald Trump, telling the Supreme Court to rule in Trumps favor in the legal battle over the presidents tax returns.

Democrats across the nation have been attempting to get Trumps financial information released, prompting a slew of legal battles.

One case stems from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat who filed a subpoena against Trumps accounting firm. The subpoena was nearly identical to two filed by House Democrats.

After the latest ruling that ordered the firm to hand Trumps tax returns over to Vance, Trumps legal team filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The DOJs Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in the 28-page Nov. 22 filing (pdf) that the nations highest court should block Vance from getting the documents.

“This case involves a state grand jurys issuance of a subpoena to a third-party custodian for the personal records of the sitting President of the United States. The United States has a substantial interest in protecting the Office of the President and the powers and duties vested in that office by Article II of the Constitution,” he wrote.

“The United States also has a substantial interest in protecting the autonomy of the federal government from potential interference by the States.”

Francisco argued that courts have not even required Vance to show he needs the documents for his investigation as judges treat the subpoena no differently than any other subpoena.

Cyrus Vance Jr. the Manhattan district attorney, in a file photograph. (Benjamin Chasteen/Epoch Times)

“This case involves the first attempt in our Nations history by a local prosecutor to subpoena personal records of the sitting President of the United States. The court of appeals blessed that attempt, holding that a court should treat a subpoena for the Presidents personal records no differently than any other subpoena. In the courts view, the District Attorney was not even required to show that he had a particularized need for the evidence sought in the subpoena or that the evidence could not be obtained elsewhere,” he wrote.

“That decision is wrong. Article II of the Constitution protects the Presidents discharge of his constitutional functions from obstruction or interference. And the Supremacy Clause protects the autonomy of the federal government from the States.”

“State grand jury subpoenas seeking the Presidents personal records raise serious constitutional concerns under both Article II and the Supremacy Clause. Leaving local prosecutors with unfettered authority to issue such subpoenas creates a serious risk that those prosecutors—prioritizing local concerns and disregarding significant federal interests—may subject the President to highly burdensome demands for information. Leaving local prosecutors with such unfettered authority also raises the risk that prosecutorRead More – Source

Show More

Related Articles