Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-715_febh.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Chairman Elijah Cummings explained the basis for the
subpoena in a memorandum to the Oversight Committee. 
According to the chairman, recent testimony by the Presi-
dent’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen, along with 
several documents prepared by Mazars and supplied by Co-
hen, raised questions about whether the President had ac-
curately represented his financial affairs.  Chairman Cum-
mings  asserted  that  the  Committee  had  “full  authority  to
investigate” whether the President: (1) “may have engaged 
in  illegal  conduct  before  and  during  his  tenure  in  office,” 
(2) “has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his
ability to make impartial policy decisions,” (3) “is complying 
with  the  Emoluments  Clauses  of  the  Constitution,”  and 
(4) “has  accurately  reported  his  finances  to  the  Office  of
Government Ethics and other federal entities.”  App. in No. 
19–5142  (CADC),  p.  107.    “The  Committee’s  interest  in 
these  matters,”  Chairman  Cummings  concluded,  “informs 
its review of multiple laws and legislative proposals under 
our jurisdiction.”  Ibid. 

B 
Petitioners—the President in his personal capacity, along
with his children and affiliated businesses—filed two suits 
challenging  the  subpoenas.  They  contested  the  subpoena
issued by the Oversight Committee in the District Court for
the District of Columbia (Mazars, No. 19–715), and the sub-
poenas  issued  by  the  Financial  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 
and violated the separation of powers.  The President did 
not, however, resist the subpoenas by arguing that any of 
the requested records were protected by executive privilege. 
For relief, petitioners asked for declaratory judgments and 
injunctions preventing Mazars and the banks from comply-
ing  with  the  subpoenas.    Although  named  as  defendants,