Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP 

Opinion of the Court 

Mazars and the banks took no positions on the legal issues
in these cases, and the House committees intervened to de-
fend the subpoenas.

Petitioners’  challenges  failed.  In  Mazars,  the  District 
Court granted judgment for the House, 380 F. Supp. 3d 76 
(DC  2019),  and  the  D. C.  Circuit  affirmed,  940  F.  3d  710
(2019).  In upholding the subpoena issued by the Oversight 
Committee to Mazars, the Court of Appeals found that the 
subpoena  served  a  “valid  legislative  purpose”  because  the 
requested information was relevant to reforming financial
disclosure  requirements  for  Presidents  and  presidential
candidates.  Id., at 726–742 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  Judge Rao dissented.  As she saw it, the “gravamen” 
of the subpoena was investigating alleged illegal conduct by 
the President, and the House must pursue such wrongdoing 
through its impeachment powers, not its legislative powers. 
Id., at 773–774.  Otherwise, the House could become a “rov-
ing inquisition over a co-equal branch of government.”  Id., 
at  748.  The  D. C.  Circuit  denied  rehearing  en  banc  over
several more dissents.  941 F. 3d 1180, 1180–1182 (2019). 
In  Deutsche  Bank,  the  District  Court  denied  a  prelimi-
nary injunction, 2019 WL 2204898 (SDNY, May 22, 2019), 
and the Second Circuit affirmed “in substantial part,” 943 
F. 3d 627, 676 (2019).  While acknowledging that the sub-
poenas  are  “surely  broad  in  scope,”  the  Court  of  Appeals 
held  that  the  Intelligence  Committee  properly  issued  its 
subpoena to Deutsche Bank as part of an investigation into 
alleged  foreign  influence  over  petitioners  and  Russian  in-
terference with the U. S. political process.  Id., at 650, 658– 
659.  That investigation, the court concluded, could inform
legislation to combat foreign meddling and strengthen na-
tional security.  Id., at 658–659, and n. 59. 

As  to  the  subpoenas  issued  by  the  Financial  Services
Committee to Deutsche Bank and Capital One, the Court of 
Appeals concluded that they were adequately related to po-
tential legislation on money laundering, terrorist financing,