Appeals court delays release of Trump financial records in emoluments lawsuit

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that financial records related to President Trump’s Washington hotel can be kept on hold, a decision that came the same day that the Supreme Court ruled that New York state prosecutors could obtain the president’s financial records. 

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled Thursday that the records sought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia will be put on pause while the Department of Justice (DOJ) appeals the ruling from the Supreme Court.

Trump’s financial records were previously put on hold while the president’s appeal was pending. The Supreme Court ruling will likely spark other court battles, making it unlikely the president’s financial records will be available to prosecutors before the November election. 

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine  (D) launched an investigation in 2017 into whether Trump violated the clause by accepting payments from foreign governments through his D.C. hotel.

“We are disappointed that we will not be able to resume discovery immediately because of President Trump’s continued delay tactics,” Racine and Frosh said in a joint statement to The Hill.

“We want to get to the truth about President Trump’s constitutional violations and that is what the President is attempting to prevent,” they said. “We are prepared to defend the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and the uncontroversial principles of law on which it relies, and we believe that the Constitution will ultimately prevail.”

The Supreme Court’s decision related to a New York criminal probe against the president. In a 7-2 decision, it ruled that Manhattan prosecutors have a right to obtain Trump’s tax returns, though it said Trump could make the same arguments as any citizen against the subpoena.

On Monday, Democratic lawmakers appealed their own emoluments case against Trump to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court ruled that because they did not represent the majority in either congressional chamber they lacked standing to sue the president.