Days after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a defeat to President Trump, clearing the way for the Manhattan district attorney to seek his tax returns, his lawyers on Wednesday renewed their efforts to block or at least narrow access to the records.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote to the federal judge in Manhattan who originally presided over the case, saying they planned to argue that the district attorney’s subpoena was too broad and politically motivated.
The recent Supreme Court decision struck down the president’s previous argument that he could not be criminally investigated. In the new filing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers noted that the decision allowed him to raise other objections: that the subpoena “is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith,” and that it would impede his constitutional duties.
The president and the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, have been locked in a battle over the records for almost a year.
Judge Marrero is set to hold a hearing on Thursday to discuss a schedule for further arguments. He is not expected not to rule on the merits of either side’s position on the subpoena itself.
Michael D. Cohen, the president’s onetime lawyer, paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to buy her silence during the 2016 presidential campaign and later pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations for his role in that deal and another hush-money payment.
Mr. Cohen, who is serving a three-year sentence at a federal prison in Otisville, N.Y., implicated the president, saying in court that he had acted on Mr. Trump’s orders.
After federal prosecutors concluded their investigation last year, Mr. Vance’s office began examining whether New York State laws had been broken when Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, reimbursed Mr. Cohen. The subpoena was issued as part of that inquiry.
In October, Judge Marrero, in a 75-page opinion, rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that he was immune from all investigation, calling it “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”
After a federal appeals court panel unanimously upheld the ruling, the president sought review in the Supreme Court.