The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trumps request on Nov. 25, to temporarily block House access to his financial records.
The countrys high court announced (pdf) that it had granted Trumps emergency stay to block a subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee to require his accountants, Mazars USA, to turn over the records. There was no noted dissent from the courts unsigned order. The president now has until Dec. 5 to formally file a full appeal of the lower courts ruling.
Congressional Democrats had subpoenaed the New York accounting firm to produce the records in April. In October, a lower court ruled that the committee had the authority to subpoena the records from Mazars, while the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trumps request earlier this month to reconsider the lower courts decision.
The House Oversight Committee has argued that Trumps case was too weak to earn a delay from the court.
The delay allows the justices to decide on the House subpoena and a similar demand from the Manhattan district attorney at the same time.
In the separate New York case, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., a Democrat, issued a subpoena to Mazars requesting Trumps financial records in relation to a criminal case. Vance Jr. is investigating hush money paid to two women during the 2016 presidential campaign—adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump has denied the affairs and any other wrongdoing.
In a court filing to the Supreme Court, Justice Department Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in the 28-page Nov. 22 filing (pdf) that the justices should block Vance Jr. from getting the documents.
Francisco argues that courts havent even required Vance to show he needs the documents for his investigation and that “state grand jury subpoenas seeking the presidents personal records raise serious constitutional concerns.”
“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 prosecutors could use subpoenas to harass the PresRead More – Source