The ruling from Judge Amit Mehta (left) will represent a flashpoint in the myriad disputes between the White House and Congress. | Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images Legal Judge grills Trump attorney in subpoena case Democrats are fighting for access to the president's financial records.

A federal judge raised pointed doubts Tuesday about arguments by President Donald Trump’s legal team that a Democratic effort to subpoena Trump’s financial records was an invalid exercise of congressional power.

Amit Mehta, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, indicated that he would have trouble ruling that Congress’ goal in accessing the president’s records was unconstitutional — as Trump’s lawyers have argued — and he underscored that he believes Congress has a significant “informing function” that doesn’t necessarily require an explicit legislative purpose to justify an investigation involving the president.


“Does Congress have to do that — do they have to identify a bill in advance? The Supreme Court has said the opposite,” Mehta said during a round of questioning with Trump’s attorney William Consovoy during a hearing.

Consovoy argued throughout Tuesday’s hearing that Congress has no basis for investigating whether Trump’s financial disclosures are accurate, contending that it’s a “law enforcement issue” that’s not tied to a specific legislative agenda.

Mehta cast serious doubt on those claims, suggesting at one point that investigations of such financial violations are “strictly” under Congress' purview and that the courts have “very little, if any” discretion over Congress’ asks.

“I almost wonder whether I have no role,” Mehta told Consovoy at one point.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Despite Mehta’s apparent skepticism of the Trump team’s legal arguments, the appointee of President Barack Obama declined to issue a ruling from the bench but said he would mull over the arguments in the coming days, calling the nature of the dispute too significant to decide quickly. He gave both sides until the end of the week to submit additional filings and evidence.

If Mehta ultimately rules that the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena — seeking eight years of Trump’s financial records from the accounting firm Mazars USA — is valid, it would mark a significant victory for House Democrats mounting a slew of inquiries about the president’s financial dealings, each of which have been challenged by Trump. The committee’s demand is part of its investigation into financial crimes allegedly committed by Trump, including whether he inaccurately reported his finances.

It also would reinforce a ruling made in 2017 in support of House Republican efforts to obtain private records from Fusion GPS — the firm commissioned by the Democratic Party to conduct opposition research on Trump in 2016.

House General Counsel Douglas Letter, arguing on behalf of the oversight panel, urged Mehta to make a timely ruling on the matter.

“This Congress is limited in time. There’s obviously going to be appeals here. We just do not want there to be any lag in time,” Letter said. “We rushed and we briefed this case. We think it should be decided quickly. … Any delay here undermines the House’s ability to do what the Constitution allows it to do.”

Letter knocked the president in his opening remarks to the judge, contending that the president “has taken the position” that Congress is a “nuisance.”

“The problem with that is this is a total and basic and fundamental misunderstanding of the system that was set up by the Constitution,” Letter said.

President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the committee’s subpoena three weeks ago. | Evan Vucci/AP File Photo

Trump filed suit seeking to invalidate the committee’s subpoena three weeks ago — the first of two lawsuits aimed at hobbling House Democrats’ investigations targeting his administration, presidential campaign and business empire.

Mehta’s ruling could provide a blueprint for other judges deciding on Trump’s attempts to thwart congressional investigations. Trump has also filed a lawsuit to block the House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees from subpoenaing Deutsche Bank and Capital One, where many of his business and personal financial records are housed.

The judge’s ruling will also represent a flashpoint in the myriad disputes between the White House and Congress — marking the first time the judiciary weighs in on Trump’s blanket strategy of refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and oversight requests from House Democrats.

Mehta spent the early portion of the hearing grilling Consovoy about why Congress' interest in investigating possible foreign payments to the president — known as emoluments — isn't valid and whether Congress has legitimate investigative interest into a president's potential financial conflicts of interest.

“Say for example if a president had a financial interest in a particular piece of legislation that was being considered … in your view Congress could not investigate whether a president has a conflict of interest?” Mehta wondered.

“It would lack legitimate legislative purpose,” replied Consovoy, who argued that any attempt by Congress to determine whether a president was acting outside the law was improper because it's the job of law enforcement, not lawmakers.

Mehta questioned, however, whether the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons or the Watergate investigation of President Richard Nixon would have passed muster under Trump's current legal theory.

Trump's attorney said he was arguing only on the facts of the subpoena case, not previous investigations.

Consovoy urged Mehta to grant Trumps’ legal team “a week or two” to gather documents from the top Republican on the Oversight Committee, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, that might support their case. Consovoy said he’s particularly interested in obtaining a memorandum of understanding between the Oversight Committee and the Intelligence and Financial Services panels, which he said could support the argument that Democrats are pursuing Trump from a law enforcement — not legislative — perspective.

Consovoy acknowledged that he'd have no authority to compel production of that document from committee Democrats, including Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), but he said Jordan might be willing to provide it voluntarily. Letter told Mehta that the memorandum of understanding has “nothing to do” with the Mazars subpoena but offered to provide it to the court under seal.

Letter said the House’s investigations have been supported by a previous Supreme Court ruling determining that such probes only need to have a conceivable legislative purpose, not necessarily an explicit one.

Mehta asked Letter whether he agreed with the notion that Congress’ legislative role also includes an “informing function” — providing important information to the public. Letter noted that Congress investigated the 9/11 attacks and issues related to the Iraq War, Watergate and Whitewater — primarily to inform the public.

Letter also noted that it’s sometimes impossible to know what legislative remedy might arise from an investigation at the outset. “I’m not a prophet,” he said, “you’re not a prophet.”

When Mehta questioned whether there are any conceivable limits on Congress’ demands for private presidential documents, Letter replied that it’s conceivable but that this case isn’t close.

“I want to see the president’s diary from when he was 7 years old or she was 12 years old — that would probably stretch my arguments to the breaking point,” he said.

Cummings issued the so-called friendly subpoena earlier this year to Mazars, which asked for the subpoena so that it could comply with the request. He issued it just days after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, provided documents to the Oversight panel purportedly showing that the president artificially inflated and deflated the value of his assets in order to benefit financially.

Cohen in February disclosed several of Trump’s financial statements which were submitted to Deutsche Bank in 2014 as Trump was seeking a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills NFL team. Cohen told lawmakers that the documents showed that Trump inflated the value of certain assets to secure the loan.

The committee says it needs Trump’s financial records from Mazars as part of its efforts to corroborate Cohen’s allegations.

During the hearing, Mehta also asked pointed questions of the House Democratic side. Mehta noted that Cummings suggested at the outset of his subpoena request that he wanted to “determine whether the president may have engaged in illegal conduct” before taking office.

“This is not an impeachment proceeding. What’s the basis to investigate illegal conduct before his tenure in office?” Mehta wondered.

Letter replied hypothetically that there could be significant questions about whether Trump was under the thumb of a foreign power.

“President Trump has conceded, I believe, that he was trying to get a hotel in Moscow. Had he not been elected he would have pursued that,” he said, noting that the president may have taken questionable steps to secure that hotel.

“It may very well be that the Russians know that. It may very well be that the Russian oligarchs know that. We need to know that … Is the president of the United States beholden to foreign interests who can hold certain things over his head?” Letter continued.



CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to clarify that Judge Amit Mehta will hear in-person arguments.