Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TRUMP ET AL. v. MAZARS USA, LLP, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 19–715.  Argued May 12, 2020—Decided July 9, 2020* 

In  April  2019,  three  committees  of  the  U. S.  House  of  Representatives
issued four subpoenas seeking information about the finances of Pres-
ident  Donald  J.  Trump,  his  children,  and  affiliated  businesses.    The 
House Committee on Financial Services issued a subpoena to Deutsche
Bank seeking any document related to account activity, due diligence, 
foreign transactions, business statements, debt schedules, statements
of  net  worth,  tax  returns,  and  suspicious  activity  identified  by 
Deutsche Bank.  It issued a second subpoena to Capital One for similar 
information.  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued 
a subpoena  to Deutsche Bank that mirrored the subpoena issued by
the  Financial  Services  Committee.   And  the  House  Committee  on 
Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to the President’s personal
accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, demanding information related to
the President and several affiliated businesses.  Although each of the
committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, each sup-
plied different justifications for the requests, explaining that the infor-
mation  would  help  guide  legislative  reform  in  areas  ranging  from
money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U. S. elec-
tions.  Petitioners—the President in his personal capacity, along with
his children and affiliated businesses—contested the subpoena issued
by  the  Oversight  Committee  in  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of
Columbia (Mazars, No. 19–715) and the subpoenas issued by the Fi-
nancial Services and Intelligence Committees in the Southern District
of New York (Deutsche Bank, No. 19–760).  In both cases, petitioners
contended that the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose 

—————— 

* Together with  19–760,  Trump  et al.  v.  Deutsche  Bank AG et al.,  on 

certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.