WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to shield his financial records from disclosure to investigators for the second time in two days. His latest request asked the court temporarily to block the release of records held by his accounting firm to a House committee while the justices consider whether to hear his appeal in the case.

That stay application followed a petition on Thursday in a separate case in which prosecutors in Manhattan are seeking eight years of Mr. Trump’s business and personal tax returns. The prosecutors in that case had agreed not to seek immediate release of the records in exchange for a prompt request for Supreme Court review.

There is no such agreement in the case arising from the House subpoena. If the justices do not grant a stay, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, has indicated that it will comply with the subpoena. If the justices do grant a stay, they may act on the requests for review in the two cases at the same time.

The new case started after the House Oversight and Reform Committee learned that Mr. Trump’s ethics disclosure forms did not list a debt for hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. The president has denied the relationship.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers went to court to try to block the subpoena. They argued that the committee was powerless to obtain his records because it had no legislative need for them. They said the panel was engaged in an improper criminal inquiry and was not seeking information to help it enact legislation.

Lawyers for the committee responded that the records were needed for multiple, proper reasons, and that courts should not second-guess congressional decision-making.

In October, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to block the subpoena.

“Having considered the weighty interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable,” Judge David S. Tatel, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote for the majority. Judge Patricia A. Millett, appointed by President Barack Obama, joined the majority opinion.

In dissent, Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Mr. Trump. wrote that “allegations of illegal conduct against the President cannot be investigated by Congress except through impeachment.”

On Wednesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to rehear the panel’s ruling. The three judges who noted dissents were appointed by Republican presidents.

The committee’s case may have been strengthened in the interim by the House’s vote to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry, as congressional authority to seek information in that context is quite broad.

In a second dissent on Wednesday, Judge Rao said the resolution did not alter the calculus. “This circuit,” she wrote, “has not determined whether a defective subpoena can be revived by after-the-fact approval.” In any event, she wrote, the relevant House resolution did not retroactively endorse the earlier subpoena.

Source: Read Full Article