Trump in new legal bid to stop New York prosecutors getting their hands on his tax returns
Move follows the US Supreme Court’s rejection earlier this summer of the president’s immunisation claims
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lawyers for Donald Trump have filed a motion with a federal appeals court requesting that it reconsider its decision last month to allow Manhattan’s top prosecutor to obtain nearly a decade’s worth of the US president’s business and personal tax returns.
The motion, filed with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, argues that US District Judge Victor Marrero erred in giving Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance the OK to enforce what it called a “dragnet” subpoena into eight years of Trump’s tax returns with the accounting firm Mazars USA and expand a criminal probe into the president’s business dealings.
The filing further argues that Mr Marrero failed to consider the “unlimited breadth” and scope of Mr Vance’s subpoena, which Mr Trump’s lawyers say was largely copied from an earlier subpoena by Congressional Democrats.
“Subpoenas issued to the President that are 'arbitrary fishing expeditions' or that are issued 'out of malice or an intent to harass' are invalid”, the filing said.
Mr Trump has fought releasing his tax returns since the 2016 campaign trail, becoming the first major party nominee in four decades to not make his returns public.
He has repeatedly argued that, as president, he was categorically immune from state prosecutors subpoenaing his records – an argument the US Supreme Court rejected in July.
“No citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding”, Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr wrote in the majority opinion. “We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need".
But despite rejecting Mr Trump’s immunity claim, the Supreme Court did allow the president to object to the scope of Mr Vance’s probe.
On 20 August, Mr Marrero refused to block the subpoena, saying that “justice requires an end to this controversy".
The seemingly endless appeals process will likely not be resolved before the November election, for which Mr Trump is seeking a second term. Mr Vance has argued that by continually dragging the matter through the courts, Mr Trump has effectively received the immunity he has always wanted.
The Independent has reached out to Mr Vance’s office for comment. Oral arguments in the trial are scheduled for later this month.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments