The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether President Donald Trump must comply with subpoenas for his financial documents from a New York grand jury and from U.S. congressional committees.

The justices granted review in a trio of cases—Trump v. Vance, Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank—in which federal appellate courts in New York and Washington rejected the president's arguments to shield financial records from law enforcement and congressional investigators. Then-candidate Trump vowed to release those records, but has since refused.

The announcement, which set arguments for the March session, adds blockbuster cases to a docket already teeming with disputes that could deliver far-reaching consequences on immigration, workplace equality and abortion rights.

The New York grand jury subpoena, issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., stems from a state grand jury investigation into allegations that the president paid hush money to two women through his former lawyer Michael Cohen before the 2016 election.

Trump's counsel, William Consovoy of Washington's Consovoy McCarthy, had argued that Trump had "temporary presidential immunity" from investigations and prosecutions while in office.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last month, in an opinion by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, unanimously upheld the subpoena. "The subpoena at issue is directed not at the President, but to his accountants; compliance does not require the president to do anything at all," the appeals court said.

The petition challenging the grand jury subpoena was filed by Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Alan Sekulow, along with Consovoy.

The court consolidated two cases—one from the D.C. Circuit and one from the Second Circuit—in which U.S. congressional committees are seeking records from Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One.

The U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee issued the subpoena at issue in Trump v. Mazars. Mazars is Trump's longtime accounting firm. The Supreme Court last month, in an unsigned order, put the subpoena temporarily on hold until Trump's lawyers filed a formal petition challenging the D.C. Circuit's ruling.

The House subpoena was triggered by testimony from Cohen during the House committee's hearing in February. Cohen alleged that Trump had inflated and deflated his assets on personal financial statements to obtain a bank loan and to reduce his New York real estate taxes and insurance premiums.

A divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled that the House had a legitimate legislative purpose in seeking the tax records because "it seeks information important to determining the fitness of legislation to address potential problems within the executive branch and the electoral system; it does not seek to determine the president's fitness for office."

William Consovy William S. Consovoy. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

Consovoy argued in his petition that the committee's investigation of Trump for wrongdoing was not a legitimate legislative purpose but, instead, was "an attempt to exercise a law-enforcement power beyond Congress's legislative purview."

House general counsel Douglas Letter, in his response urging the justices to deny review, told the high court, "This court has repeatedly upheld Congress's ability to issue legislative subpoenas and has 'unequivocally and emphatically endorsed' the view that 'a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the president,' and that the president may be subject even to process issued by a private citizen."

The justices also agreed to hear Trump's appeal of two subpoenas issued by House committees seeking financial documents related to Trump's businesses and certain of his relatives. A divided Second Circuit panel ruled in December that Deutsche Bank and Capital One had to provide nearly a decade worth of tax returns and other documents.