Trump, House committee to appeal judge’s order to hand over some tax records

Former President Trump and the House Oversight Committee are both appealing a judge’s decision this week ordering his accounting firm to turn over some of his personal and corporate financial records to House Democrats, lawyers said in court filings Thursday.

The move comes just a day after U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta delivered a partial victory for the House Oversight Committee, which has been fighting in court for two years to enforce a subpoena for the former president’s financial and tax information. 

Mehta, who was appointed by former President Obama, threw out much of the committee’s subpoena on the grounds that it posed constitutional concerns but ordered the accounting firm Mazars to turn over records related to the lawmakers’ investigation into Trump’s lease with the federal government for the property housing his D.C. hotel. 

“The more Congress can invade the personal sphere of a former President, the greater the leverage Congress would have on a sitting President,” Mehta wrote in his decision.

It’s not yet clear what aspects of the decision Trump’s legal team and attorneys for the House intend to challenge. 

An attorney representing Trump in the case did not immediately respond when asked for comment. A spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said of the decision Wednesday that she appreciated that the court recognized the importance of the investigation into “opaque financial dealings.”

“I am pleased that the Court found that the Committee is entitled to eight years of financial information from Mazars related to President Trump, the Trump Organization, and the Trump Old Post Office Hotel, as well as a broader set of information from the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency,” Maloney said in a statement. “While it is disappointing that the Court, despite finding that the entire subpoena served valid legislative purposes, narrowed the subpoena in some respects, the Committee is actively considering next steps.”