The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13 to schedule three cases, to decide whether President Donald J. Trump can protect the privacy of financial data from both his bank accounts and his accounting firm.
In a statement, it explained that it will hear in March 2020—four months before the presidential election—the pleadings of all the cases separately.
The following month, in June, the high court will dictate whether the two judicial petitions issued by two House committees—controlled by Democrats—and a third by New York State have the ability to force the president to publish his personal banking and accounting records.
The main issue to be resolved is the extent to which private businesses that a president had before taking office are subject to parliamentary oversight, Fox News reported.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the president’s three pending cases,” Jay Sekulow, the president’s attorney, said in a statement quoted by Fox News.
“These cases raise significant constitutional issues. We look forward to presenting our written and oral arguments,” added Sekulow, who is part of President Trump’s legal team that requested the Supreme Court’s intervention after a lower federal court ruled against the president.
The three controversial subpoenas
The first of the subpoenas is by Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who requires the filing of taxes by the president and his New York-based business entities to seek, among other things, alleged payments to two women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with him. Claims that Donald Trump himself has rejected.
And the House Oversight Committee requested eight years of bank records from President Trump to investigate alleged manipulations of credit figures and other allegations by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, currently in prison for false testimony and corruption.
In the third and final case, the House Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee requested the president’s personal records with Deutsche Bank and several of its entities, as well as those of his children and even grandchildren.
“The practical threat that state criminal process poses to a president cannot be overstated. State and local prosecutors have massive incentives to target him with investigations and subpoenas to advance their careers, enhance their re-election prospects, or make a political statement,” reads President Trump’s petition for intervention to the Supreme Court.
“Unleashing all fifty states and thousands of local governments to conduct their own broad-ranging criminal investigations of a sitting president is unimaginable,” Trump argued.