WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A US UU court of appeal. He backed a House of Representatives request on Friday regarding President Donald Trump’s financial documents, including tax documents, and rejected an appeal by the president to prevent his accounting firm from providing information.
US Court of Appeal UU. In the case of the District of Columbia, in a decision 2-1, it upheld a lower court decision that the quote from the House Oversight Committee for the accounting records of Mazars LLP was valid.
“[The] Committee has the power, both in the rules of procedure and in the Constitution, to issue the subpoena,” said the majority of the two judges.
Trump’s lawyers can still appeal the decision before it comes into force. Will Consovoy, a Trump personal attorney, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The House of Representatives panel said it needed the documents in part to determine whether Trump, whose business interests ranged from real estate and golf courses to a reality show, complied with the laws requiring disclosure of its assets.
Trump sued the House panel in April, arguing that his quote exceeded the constitutional limits of congressional investigative power.
A US District Judge UU. In a May decision, he said the Mazar documents could help Congress pass laws and other basic functions.
It was the first time a federal court had entered a dispute over the boundaries of Congress by investigating Trump and his cases. It was an important victory for House Democrats.
Trump is trying separately to prevent New York state attorneys from applying a summons to appear against Mazars for his eight years of tax filing. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Cyrus Vance, is seeking these statements as part of a criminal investigation.
Trump asserted in this case that he was safe from the investigation as acting president. The court should hear the arguments of the case on October 23.
Trump is also fighting subpoenas of House committees seeking to obtain their financial documents from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp., although these documents do not include their tax returns. This case is also before a court of appeal in New York that has not yet ruled.