An appeals court agreed that the House Ways and Means Committee’s request for former President Trump’s tax returns has a proper legislative purpose and doesn’t violate separation of powers.
In an August 9 opinion, a D.C. Circuit three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Trump’s cross-claims in Committee on Ways and Means v. Treasury.
The court heard oral arguments from Trump attorney Cameron T. Norris of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and government attorneys Douglas N. Letter and Gerard Sinzdak in late March. Although the judges expressed skepticism over which standard to use to determine separation of powers issues, they found Trump’s arguments over the validity of the request unconvincing.
“The Chairman has identified a legitimate legislative purpose that it requires information to accomplish. At this stage, it is not our place to delve deeper than this. The mere fact that individual members of Congress may have political motivations as well as legislative ones is of no moment. Indeed, it is likely rare that an individual member of Congress would work for a legislative purpose without considering the political implications,” Senior Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle wrote in the opinion.
The court also issued a same-day stay order, giving Trump seven days to file an appeal or petition for rehearing before the documents can be handed over to the House.
Wrong Law, Right Conclusion
Although the D.C. Circuit affirmed Judge Trevor N. McFadden’s decision to dismiss Trump’s claims, it disagreed with McFadden’s use of Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), to determine separation of powers issues concerning former presidents.
As decided in Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, No. 21-5176 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the court saw little reason to change the separation of powers standard because Trump left office.
“It is likely law of the circuit that a Congressional request for a sitting President’s personal information is evaluated under the heightened Mazars standard regardless of whether the President in question remains in office,” Sentelle wrote.
However, the court found that using the standard in Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019 (2020), didn’t change the outcome of the dismissal because the request met all four elements of the test in Mazars.
Trump asserted that releasing his tax returns to the House committee would be overly burdensome and could lead to the release of private information. While the court agreed that releasing his returns was a burden, it said it wasn’t a substantial one.
“This is certainly inconvenient, but not to the extent that it represents an unconstitutional burden violating the separation of powers. Congressional investigations sometimes expose the private information of entities, organizations, and individuals that they investigate. This does not make them overly burdensome. It is the nature of the investigative and legislative processes,” Sentelle wrote.
The court was also unconvinced that it would be an unconstitutional burden on a president in office. “While it is possible that Congress may attempt to threaten the sitting President with an invasive request after leaving office, every President takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office. This is a feature of our democratic republic, not a bug,” Sentelle wrote.
Reactions From the Hill
Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., welcomed the news. “With great patience, we followed the judicial process, and yet again, our position has been affirmed by the Courts. I’m pleased that this long-anticipated opinion makes clear the law is on our side. When we receive the returns, we will begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program,” he said in a release.
Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chair Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J. also celebrated the outcome on Twitter, saying the court’s decision should be “the final word” on the matter.
Ways and Means Committee ranking member Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said he hopes that Trump appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.
“If left to stand the DC Court of Appeals ruling unleashes a dangerous new political weapon, granting Congress nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of political enemies — whether they be Presidents, private citizens, or even justices of the Supreme Court,” Brady said in a statement.
Long-Standing Battle
The House battle for Trump’s tax returns has been ongoing for more than three years. Neal requested the returns in April 2019, but then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena, arguing that the request was disingenuous in its purpose.
Trump filed cross-claims in August 2021 against the request, arguing that separation of powers still applied and that Congress was seeking the tax returns for political reasons.
The government moved to dismiss those claims, arguing that seeking to draft legislation on presidential tax return audits is a valid legislative purpose and that no separation of powers exists because Trump is no longer president.
McFadden dismissed the former president’s cross-claims and counterclaims in December 2021.
In Committee on Ways and Means v. Treasury, No. 21-5289 (D.C. Cir. 2022), Trump is represented by attorneys with Consovoy McCarthy PLLC.