The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – known as the DC Circuit and called the "second highest court" in the country – handles a distinctive volume of cases that test the power of federal regulators and the executive.
The DC Circuit's portfolio has long placed it at the center of disputes over potential misconduct in the White House, such as during the Watergate during the Nixon years, the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra scandal, and the investigation of independent lawyer Ken Star President Bill Clinton.
The ruling, which is already reflected in other Trump-related litigation, comes from an appeals court that is not only more prominent than most, but one whose members have been more provocative and attention-grabbing. Four of the current nine Supreme Court justices have been elevated from this single circuit. And Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the Supreme Court but never received a Senate vote, is the chief judge on the DC circuit.
A steady interpretation of the court's supervisory power arose in litigation that began before the Democratic Lead House began its impeachment investigation and began to focus on Trump's Ukrainian dealings. The battle for a call involving Trump's longtime accountants, Mazars USA, has been stifling for months.
However, DC's respect for power in Congress is widely publicized and may affect other battles between Democrats and Trump.
The decision reflects the durability of the judiciary ̵
"They are perceived as legal technicians. Their view is that they do not make politics, they apply the law, "University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Begley said. "But the nature of the fights that are brought into the DC circle are often those that boil guerrilla blood."
"The law is on the side of Congress," says Begley, who was a law clerk in the DC chain and the Supreme Court and now specializes in administrative law, "But as far as politics matters here, and probably matters in after all, there are more denominators of democracy in this court. "
Putting Marks in the Case of Trump's Tax Records
Presidents tend to use DC candidates with experience in the executive and record of scientific papers. They seek thoughtful thinkers, sometimes ideological crusaders.
As a result, DC Circuit nominees have endured bitter confirmation battles over the years. Three current Obama-appointed judges took to the bench after a titanic partisan clash in 2013 that forced the then-Democratic Senate, facing the GOP stone wall, to amend the longtime rules of the filibuster.
The confirmation dispute has only accelerated over time as the DC circuit has become a step for the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts is among the four current DC judges. (Earlier Chief Justice Warren Burger also first wore a black DC slave.)
And in the annals of high court confirmation battles, three DC judges stand out: Denial of the Senate by the Democrats in 1987 Robert Bork, nominated for Ronald Reagan; the Garland Republican blockade; and last year's fierce battle over Trump nominee Brett Cavanaugh, which was eventually confirmed.
Trump filed a lawsuit to prevent the transfer of Mazar's documents to the US by the Chamber's Committee on Oversight and Reform. The committee says it needs Trump's financial records to assess compliance with federal ethics rules and to guide his work on the legislation.
Circuit DC joined the House Committee, 2-1, stating that there was a call for power within the House rules and the Constitution and that the Mazars should abandon the documents.
Rao, whom Trump appointed to the bench last year and confirmed earlier this year, disagreed. Rao said the US House could only investigate the president for misconduct as part of an impeachment. "Allowing the Committee to issue this summons for legislative purposes," she writes, "would make Congress an unwavering Inquisition for an equal arm of the government."
This opinion was stated by Judges David Tutel and Patricia Milet, the two Democrats appoint, "would rearrange the very structure of the Constitution." "Rao's new approach," Titel writes for the majority, will impose a "Congress on Hobson's election for impeachment or nothing."
Either way, in the classic DC circuit style, both parties have laid markers on the foundations of congressional investigations, probably with a look at the Supreme Court and future litigation. Tatel's opinion on the majority was 66 pages; Rao's disagreement was 68 pages.
DC's full chain of hearing "en banc" or direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
The DC Circuit rarely provides such hearings, but if one is requested and granted, Trump's attorneys will file their case with all 11 judges in a dramatic session.
Even if the request for a full DC hearing is ultimately denied, the Trump team may find it advantageous to request one, as going through this process may buy more time for Trump's greater efforts to avoid disclosing his records. 
History of Contradictions
Most courts of appeals in the United States handle numerous criminal cases, conflicts of religion and social policy, and all kinds of business disputes. But DC DC, by virtue of its location in the nation's capital and specific jurisdiction, is hearing a narrower package, mainly related to how the government works.
The DC Circuit interprets the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"Whatever combination of letters you put together," Roberts says in a 2005 lecture, reprinted in the Virginia State Review, "it is likely that the authority would review that agency's decision. in DC circuit. "
The ideological clashes continued over the years. Reagan made his mark on the court by appointing eight conservative lawyers in the 1980s, including Bork; Antonin Scalia, later raised in the Supreme Court; and Ken Star, who later became an independent lawyer for Whitewater and triggered the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
Appointed to Clinton since 1994, Tatelle was a director of the Civil Rights Office at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at the beginning of his career and previously served on the Law Committee on Civil Law in Chicago.
This change led to the confirmation of those appointed by Obama Miletus, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins.
Pillard, now 58, is perhaps the most liberal of the three. A law professor at Georgetown, she previously worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and has extensive experience in civil rights and women's advocacy. Pillard is already on the shortlist of liberals, hoping the Democrat will win the White House in 2020 and may fill a new vacancy in the Supreme Court.
56-year-old Millet, an appellate specialist who worked for the Department of Justice and corporate law, had a more moderate reputation. But shortly after Trump took office, she confronted then-judge DC Cavanaugh in the first phase of an unusual abortion case. Kavanaugh was part of a group that stood up to the Trump administration in its effort to block a pregnant migrant teen from getting an abortion. Millet wrote that the move sacrificed the constitutional rights of a 17-year-old woman for no good reason.
Another possible liberal candidate for the Supreme Court for a Democratic president would be Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was born in India, grew up in Kansas, and would be the first Asian-American and Hindu in the Supreme Court.
52-year-old Srinivasan is a relatively incompatible Obama nominee, unanimously confirmed in spring 2013. Previously, he worked in the Department of Justice and was a High Court Justice in the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O & # 39; Connor Reagan. 
Both Katzas and Rao were officers of the law of justice Clarence Thomas, the most conservative member of this Supreme Court. Both were approved by the Senate with party votes. No Democrat voted for Rao and only one Democrat voted for Katsas.
55-year-old Katsas previously worked in the George W. Bush administration and in the White House on Trump he is a deputy (former) White House adviser to Don McGee, defending Trump's early immigration policies.
During his Senate hearing earlier this year, 46-year-old Rao sparked disputes on several fronts, mainly because of his work overseeing the Trump administration's efforts to waive the rules, but also about his student body. scriptures that suggest that women can avoid date rape by changing their behavior. Following criticism from senators, including Republicans, she wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying, "Sexual assault in all forms, including date of rape, is disgusting. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist. "
Before being appointed regulatory" king, "Rao headed the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.
It was particularly in sync with Trump's program to reduce the reach of agency power – what is called the "administrative state" – for the environment, labor, and other public concerns.
In addition to the challenges arising from the focus of the Trump administration, the DC chain is positioned to take more cases, including the Chamber's efforts to obtain Trump documents.  This is a well-known story, the majority of the DC Circuit wrote in the case last Friday. "[D] gaps between Congress and the president are a recurring story in our national history," Tutel said. "And that's exactly what the Framers planned."
The doctrine of separation of powers, he said, quoting Justice Louis Brandeis in 1926, "was not to avoid friction, but through inevitable friction … [among the branches]. .. to save the people from autocracy. "