Procedural information/background on Judge Mehta's decision.

[StarfishSaver]

As people hear more about and discuss Judge Mehta's decision, I thought it would be helpful to explain, as plainly as possible, the procedural background of the case.

This case started back on February 27 when Michael Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez asked a series of excellent questions about Donald Trump's finances. Among other things, she elicited testimony from Cohen stating that Trump inflated or under-reported his income, depending upon the circumstances. She asked him if his tax returns would be helpful in better understanding how he may have done this. Cohen said yes.

In March, Chairman Cummings contacted Trump's accountants and requested the tax records and financial statements. The accountants responded by saying that various state and federal regulations and codes of conduct prohibited them from turning over the records voluntarily (which was true). A few weeks later, after following required House committee procedures for the issuance of subpoenas, Cummings issued a subpoena to the accountants.

A week later, Trump filed suit in federal district court challenging the subpoena and asking for an injunction preventing the release of his tax records to the Oversight Committee. An injunction is an equitable remedy in which a court "enjoins" a party from doing something for a period of time in order that the requesting party not be damaged in the meantime. The requesting party must prove that they have a likelihood of winning the case on the merits and that they would be irreparably harmed if the action were to take place. This is different than a trial on the merits in which the judge decides which party should prevail. An injunction simply maintains the "status quo" while the case is being decided.

In this case, Trump was both asking the court to decide whether the House Oversight Committee had the power to order his accountants to turn over his tax records AND that the court enjoin - or halt- his accountants from turning over the documents until the underlying decision was made.

The Court ordered a hearing on the injunction and merged it with a "trial on the merits" in which it would also hear arguments on the underlying case - whether the Oversight Committee had a right to Trump's tax records. The hearing took place last week.

Today, the court ruled that the Oversight Committee has the right to obtain the tax records. It also denied Trump's motion for a stay pending appeal - a stay is similar to an injunction and would prevent the accountants from turning over the records until Trump has a chance to appeal and the appeal is decided. Judge Mehta said no stay. The records have to be turned over within seven days.

The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business
affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending
appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.
Plaintiffs have not raised a “serious legal question[] going to the merits.” Population Inst., 797
F.2d at 1078. And, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying
relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors. The court, therefore,
will not stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days agreed upon by the parties.

It is likely that Trump will appeal immediately and ask the appellate court for a stay. But Judge Mehta's decision was so well-reasoned and solidly based on precedent, the court would have to twist itself into knots to issue a stay (not that they won't ...)

If you have time, I urge you to read the opinion. It's long, but extremely well-written and easy to understand. Judge Mehta did this right. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/999-mazars-usa-decision/f3bc28123dd74a1843ef/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

I hope this is helpful!

[BigmanPigman]

1. Thank you, it is helpful.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Trump could appeal from the denial of the stay (I think - is it an appealable interlocutory order?),

but it could be risky because if the D.C. Circuit upholds the denial of the stay, it would because they agreed Trump wasn't able to establish the probability of success on the merits, which theoretically could become the law of the case.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Yes

He can appeal. But I'm not sure it would be interlocutory since Judge Mehta ruled on the merits - It may be just a regular appeal. Still trying to sort it out while cooking dinner ....

But either way, he can appeal and ask the appellate court to issue a stay pending the appeal.

[MichMan]

4. So what happens if he is forced to turn them over, but then wins the appeal ?

At that point Cummings already has them in his hands.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Yep.

Kind of hard to unring the bell.

But, frankly, I can't imagine any court ruling that Congress doesn't have oversight authority over the president, especially in a case in which his former lawyer testified under oath that he committed financial crimes.

[pecosbob]

5. Is there a chance DC Court of Appeals will refuse to hear the case and leave the order standing?

[StarfishSaver]

6. It's possible

On edit - Velveteen Rabbit's response was more accurate than mine. As they said, the court would probably not refuse to hear the case, but would just affirm the lower court.

[pecosbob]

9. ty

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Appeals to Circuit Courts of Appeal aren't normally discretionary like the Supreme Court,

but they could simply affirm the order.

[pecosbob]

10. ty

[Gothmog]

11. I have started on the opinion and it is indeed well written

I am glad that Judge Mehta make clear that subpoenas need not be issued in connection with impeachment proceedings to be valid

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

12. Yes.

Judge Mehta's not in a monastery or Ivory tower. He's surely also heard the misconceptions about impeachment hearings.