Judge: House entitled to some of Trump's financial records
House Democrats who have spent years investigating Donald Trump are entitled to some of the former president’s financial records
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.House Democrats who have spent years investigating Donald Trump are entitled to some of the former president's financial records, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington empowering Congress to have the records is the latest development in years-long legal and political skirmishes over access to Trump's closely-held finances. But it's unlikely to be the last say on the matter given expected appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in once.
At issue is a demand from Democrats on the House Oversight and Reform Committee which in 2019 and again last February subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for the records.
In his order, Mehta wrote that though he had previously turned aside Trump's challenge to the subpoena and permitted the committee's demand for records to “proceed without qualification,” a Supreme Court opinion from 2020 required a new analysis in favor of more limited access to the records than what lawmakers initially wanted.
That opinion cited separation of power concerns in saying that that while Congress has significant power to demand the president’s personal information, it is not limitless.
Applying factors that the high court set out, Mehta wrote that the House was entitled to some financial records from 2017 and 2018 — when Trump was president.
Separately, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said in an opinion last month that the Treasury Department must provide the House Ways and Means Committee with Trump’s tax returns.
That opinion said the committee chairman “has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information” and that under federal law, “Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee.”
The committee's hunt for records overlaps with other records that have already been released to investigators. In 2020, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New York District Attorney Cy Vance in his demand for Trump's tax records, though the ruling kept the documents out of the public eye. Vance's office took possession of those records in February.
____
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP