About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 10, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govdave0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~* or 101 ' Researh Service Trump v. Mazars: Implications for Congressional Oversight July 10, 2020 On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions concerning subpoenas seeking access to the President's personal financial records, including tax returns. In Trump v. Vance, the Court ruled that the President is not categorically immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers. Nor does a heightened show ing of need have to be made before a state grand jury subpoena can be issued for a sitting President's personal records. Thus, the President, though able to present some defenses that are unique to his office, is otherwise treated much like every man when called upon to produce evidence in a criminal proceeding. Not entirely so, however, in a congressional investigation. In Than v. Mazars, the Supreme Court vacated appellate court opinions directing compliance with congressional subpoenas for the President's personal financial records, holding that those courts had not sufficiently considered the weighty separation of powers concerns specifically implicated by congressional subpoenas directed at the President's personal information. The 7-2 decision clarified that, as in Vance, the President is not entirely immune from congressional process, but nevertheless laid out four special considerations that must inform an appropriately balanced and careful analysis that is triggered when Congress seeks the President's personal records. The Court then remanded, directing the lower courts to apply those considerations, and possibly others, to the specific subpoenas.Although giving guidance, the Mazars Court left the question of whether the President must comply with the congressional subpoenas for another day. This Sidebar addresses the Mazars opinion and its implications on congressional investigations. Background and Context The Mazars opinion addressed the consolidated cases of I unip v. llazars and Tump) v. Deutsche Bank. Both cases involve claims filed by President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to block private financial entities from complying with subpoenas issued by House committees for various personal financial records, ranging from 2010 to the present and including the President's tax returns. The challenged subpoenas were issued as part of different ongoing committee investigations: the House Committee on Oversight and Reform sought information in connection to its ongoing review of federal ethics laws; the House Financial Services Committee sought information in connection to its investigation into abuses of the financial system; and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sought Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSBI0517 CRS Lega i&sebar Prepared .- Memn bersand C o m m;;fte.. o f C onelclo : C--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most