The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, ruled the case on Friday morning, related to an eight-year subpoena of Trump's accounting records from his former accountant Mazars USA.
The appeals court's opinion largely supported the House's power to subpoena Trump while investigating and considering the laws in response.
"A congressional committee, as the committees have repeatedly done over the past two centuries, has issued an investigative subpoena, and the purpose of that subpoena, questioning the committee's legislative purpose, has asked a court to invalidate it. The fact that the subpoena in this case seeks information concerning the President of the United States add a twist, but not surprising, "the court wrote. "Having considered the important interests at stake in this case, we conclude that the subpoena issued by the Committee to Mazars is valid and enforceable."
The ruling marks the first major case in which an appeals court weighed on the ongoing standoff between the House and Trump. Trump has missed all his challenges so far that they have been decided in court to stop the subpoena of the House.
"Just as a congressional committee cannot invoke the president's high school transcripts in the service of a basic education investigation, nor invoke his medical records as part of a public health investigation, he cannot invoke his financial information except to facilitate an investigation into presidential finance, "the Court wrote.
"We concluded that in issuing the contested subpoena, the Committee engaged in a" legitimate legislative investigation "rather than an inadmissible law enforcement investigation."
The court, in its ruling, cites not only previous cases resolved by the Supreme Court, but also the history of the previous president's financial disclosures.
In a dissenting opinion, Trump-appointed judge Neomi Rao wrote of the impeachment, saying that "allowing the Committee to issue this summons for legislative purposes would turn Congress into a traveling inquisition about an equivalent branch of government."
Although the court's ruling was split, the case is widely considered difficult for Trump, even with the support of the Justice Department.
He may appeal to the Supreme Court to prevent Mazars, but courts, including the Supreme Court, have previously refused to reduce Congress's subpoena.
"We have not detected any constitutional flaws inherent in laws that require presidents to publicly disclose certain financial information. And that is enough," the Circuit Court noted.