![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ghanamma.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/media-reference:d9219fb958fc4400b7a0fc1d4fd70e63.jpg\" "\\"President")
<\/div>Washington – The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear President Donald Trump’s appeals in three separate cases to prevent his financial records, including tax returns, being handed over to Democratic-led House of Representatives committees and a New York prosecutor.<\/p>\n
The Republican president is trying to block subpoenas for bank records, tax returns or other materials demanded by various Democratic-led House of Representatives committees investigating corruption or foreign meddling in the U.S. elections process. The House probes are not part of the Democratic-led impeachment proceedings against Trump over his dealings with Ukraine.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, is seeking Trump’s tax returns in a criminal investigation of the president, the Trump Organization and his family real estate business.<\/p>\n
The court will hold oral arguments in March, with rulings due by the end of June.<\/p>\n
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the President\u2019s three pending cases. These cases raise significant constitutional issues,” said Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Democratic leaders in the House expressed disappointment that the justices’ decision to hear the cases will result in further delay.<\/p>\n
“Unfortunately, the American people will now have to wait several more months for final rulings,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “We are confident that the Supreme Court … will uphold the Constitution, the rulings of the lower courts and ensure that Congressional oversight can proceed.”<\/p>\n
A spokesman for Vance declined to comment.<\/p>\n
The cases are a test for how the justices view Trump’s arguments that the subpoenas are a threat to the presidency, on the one hand, and the need for lawmakers or prosecutors for information to pursue legislation or criminal investigations on the other.<\/p>\n
The court has a 5-4 conservative majority including two Trump appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.<\/p>\n
The justices’ decision to review the legality of the subpoenas investigating Trump’s conduct adds another politically-contentious issue to a court term that already includes high-profile cases on abortion, LGBT worker rights, gun rights and the fate of “dreamer” immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children.<\/p>\n
One of the Trump cases is his appeal of a lower court ruling allowing a New York grand jury to subpoena his accounting firm Mazars LLP for his records.<\/p>\n
Trump’s attorneys said prosecutors could be encouraged to investigate a president to advance their careers or score political points if that subpoena is enforced.<\/p>\n
Another case concerns a lower court decision in Washington that endorsed subpoenas issued by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee to Mazars.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Trump’s lawyers say there was no legislative purpose for the subpoenas and that the aim was merely to dig for dirt on the president.<\/p>\n
In the third case, the justices will review a lower court ruling allowing the enforcement of separate House committee subpoenas targeting Trump-related financial records from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp .<\/p>\n
The court on Friday extended its hold on the lower court ruling, which it had temporarily blocked last week.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The lower court rulings in the congressional cases, if left intact, would bring House Democrats closer to getting some of the details about Trump’s business interests.<\/p>\n
That outcome would also amount to a major blow for the president, who, unlike past presidents, has refused to publicly disclose his tax returns.<\/p>\n
Legal experts say the justices often hear cases when the president asks them to, but that does not mean Trump will ultimately prevail.<\/p>\n
\nReuters
\n<\/div>\n