Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG (591 U.S. ___, docket 19-760), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that considered whether or not congressional committees could subpoena the tax returns of President Donald Trump.

Background
The case has had multiple stages of movement through lower courts before being presented for arguments to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 943 F. 3d 627 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F. 3d 146 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2019

Trump v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, 140 S. Ct. 660 - Supreme Court 2019

Lower courts
The case was argued before District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who on May 22, 2019 ruled against Trump and ordered that the banks comply with the subpoena. Trump appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral arguments on August 23, 2019.

While the appeal was pending before the court, Capital One submitted a letter to the court saying it does not have any documents which fall under the purview of the subpoena, while Deutsche Bank filed a letter saying that it did. The letter had two names redacted; an unredacted copy of the letter was also submitted under seal. In September, a motion was jointly filed by CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, AP, and Politico to unseal the names; a week later, Reuters and Dow Jones & Company filed a motion to the same effect. In a twelve-page unanimous opinion by Senior Judge Jon O. Newman, the judges denied the requests to unseal, writing that the mere filing of a sealed document is not sufficient grounds for it to enter public access. They also said they would have been more compelled to unseal the names if Trump himself was one of the redacted names, but the court said that of them was.

The December 3, 2019 majority opinion was also written by Newman, with Peter W. Hall joining and Debra Ann Livingston dissenting in part. Judge Newman's ruling mostly affirmed the district court's ruling that ordered the banks to give documents to the House committees, but partially remanded the case back to the district court to allow Trump to argue against disclosing other specific personal information. In her partial dissent, Judge Livingston expressed concern that the subpoenas were too broad, calling them "deeply troubling," and would have fully remanded the case to the district court in order to address this concern. Following this ruling, Trump appealed both this case and Trump v. Mazars to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in both cases.

Supreme Court
The question facing the Supreme Court is whether the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to issue subpoenas to obtain the private financial records of the president and his businesses.

On December 13, 2019, the Supreme Court consolidated the case with Trump v. Mazars.

Oral arguments were originally scheduled to take place on March 31, 2020, but two weeks before the arguments were to take place, the Supreme Court postponed arguments in response to the coronavirus pandemic and waited one month to announce the rescheduled date. In April 2020, the Supreme Court said that oral argument in the Mazars case and other cases would be heard by telephone. The oral arguments for the consolidated Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, as well as Trump v. Vance, were heard on May 12. In arguing against the need for subpoenas for tax returns, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall repeatedly cited that they presented "dangers of harassing and distracting and undermining the President".

Congressional subpoenas related to this case will expire with the end of the 116th Congress at the end of 2020.

Decision
In a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the appeals courts and remanded the case back to the lower courts for to further assessment of separation of powers between the President and Congress. The Court posited a set of considerations for the courts to evaluate whether the subpoenas are justifiable.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each wrote dissenting opinions, with both asserting that the subpoenas were invalid. Thomas claimed that since the documents sought do not pertain to the Presidency, the subpoenas could only have been made as part of an impeachment investigation. Alito agreed that the case should be remanded, but argued that House committees had not shown adequate justification in this case, and that the majority's criteria were an insufficient remedy for the lower courts.