The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday in a pair of major separation-of-powers cases in which President Trump is suing several banks and one of his accounting firms to try to block them from complying with congressional subpoenas for his financial records. The president claims the subpoenas go beyond Congress’s oversight powers.
Two weeks ago, the justices signaled they may be looking for a way out — asking the parties to file new briefs addressing whether federal courts can resolve such interbranch disputes in the first place or whether they present a “political question” courts must abstain from deciding. A ruling that these disputes can be resolved only politically may be an attractive compromise to some of the justices, especially Chief Justice John Roberts. But it would be a terrible result for the separation of powers. Much like the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling requiring President Richard Nixon to comply with a subpoena for the Watergate tapes, such a ruling could well mean that the current president loses this particular battle — but that the presidency wins the war.
At issue in the two cases — Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank — is whether Congress, as part of its regulatory and oversight powers, has the constitutional authority to issue subpoenas for the president’s personal financial records. Although the recipients of these subpoenas have suggested they were willing to comply voluntarily, Trump sued to try to prevent them from doing so. Congress’s power to issue subpoenas to private parties is well established and has been repeatedly sustained by the Supreme Court in cases dating back almost a century. But the justices have never squarely decided whether that power extends to subpoenas directed to, or for the records of, senior executive branch officials, including the president.