WASHINGTON — Manhattan prosecutors and lawyers for a House committee urged the Supreme Court on Thursday not to block a pair of subpoenas directing President Donald Trump’s accounting firm to turn over several years’ worth of financial documents.

They’re likely to produce the first response by the Supreme Court to the growing number of legal battles over access to Trump’s financial secrets.

The Democratic majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena in April, ordering the accounting firm Mazars to turn over Trump-related financial documents covering 2011 through 2018. The committee said it acted after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified that “Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes.”

After lower courts rejected attempts to block the subpoena, Trump’s lawyers urged the Supreme Court last week to keep it on hold while they prepare to appeal those rulings. Chief Justice John Roberts imposed a brief hold to allow lawyers on both sides to weigh in.

Trump’s private lawyers contend that the House has no authority to subpoena records unless it seeks information for the purpose of writing laws. In this case, they said, the House is improperly acting as an investigative body in an action that implicates the president.

While they cast the dispute as one raising profound constitutional questions involving the separation of powers, the House said it is not seeking anything covered by official privilege or, in fact, anything directly from the president at all.

“There is no need for this court to make definitive pronouncements on the scope of Congress’s power in a case in which its ruling will be so limited in application and consequence,” the House said.

The House lawyers urged the court to lift the stay and let the subpoena take effect. But if the court is considering taking up the president’s appeal, they urged the justices to impose an unusually fast timetable, with all legal briefs to be due by Dec. 11. If that happened, the hold on the subpoena would remain in place until the court decided whether to hear and decide the case.

The court could also simply decline to take up the president’s appeal, allowing the House to enforce its subpoena.

The case is one of several legal challenges to Trump’s efforts to keep his financial records hidden.

In a separate filing on Thursday, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance also urged the Supreme Court not to take up an appeal from Trump’s legal team over access to his financial records.

Vance had obtained a grand jury subpoena for nearly a decade’s worth of Trump’s tax returns and other financial documents stemming from an investigation of hush money payments made to two women who claimed to have affairs with Mr. Trump, allegations that he has consistently denied.

The Trump legal team has argued that because a president cannot be indicted while in office, he is immune from any part of the criminal justice process, including grand jury subpoenas. During an appeals court argument last month, William Consovoy said a sitting president could not be investigated even for shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

Lower courts rejected that argument, and the president’s team urged the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings, saying that the case presents “a momentous question” about the scope of presidential immunity.

But Vance said Thursday in his court filings that the issue is much narrower and urged the justices to reject the appeal and leave the lower court rulings intact because the grand jury isn’t seeking anything official at all from the president himself, only personal financial records from his accountants.

The case presents only a narrow question of whether a state can issue a subpoena to a third party — the accountants — when the only records sought have no relation to official actions taken by the president while in office.

“There is no real public interest at stake here at all,” Vance said.

ATLANTA — They’re playing not to lose.

The top four candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination barely even sparred with one another at a 10-person MSNBC/Washington Post debate at Tyler Perry’s sprawling studio complex here Wednesday night.

Without a doubt, the incentive structures and circumstances were a bit different for each member of the breakaway group — former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — but they all added up to taking a lap under a caution flag in a race in which many candidates have failed but no one has taken a commanding lead.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

The others had little reason to go after Buttigieg, who has struggled with black voters across the country at the same time he’s risen to the top of the polls in the Iowa caucuses, according to Howard Franklin, an Atlanta-based Democratic strategist.

“He is already lacking support from the constituency that could propel him deep into the primary — black voters,” Franklin said. “His connection to other segments of the electorate is strong and authentic, so there’s little upside in picking at his sore spot or attacking from a new, likely ineffective angle.”

There’s also risk, Franklin added: “Mayor Pete has also cultivated the ‘nice guy’ persona in the race, and his highly educated base of voters would likely remember and resent a public broadside, possibly withholding their support from the attacker [later], even if the criticism rang true.”

According to NBC’s tracker, Biden leveled one attack at Warren and one at Sanders; Buttigieg knocked Warren once; Sanders hit Biden once; and Warren went after Trump, the “ultra-rich” and corporations — but none of her Democratic opponents.

For Biden, who has shown resilience as the front-runner in the race since he entered it seven months ago, there’s enough to worry about in terms of not tripping over his own words that delivering attacks on other candidates might be a risky proposition. And, at the same time, sentiment about him in the Democratic Party is so positive that he has proven to be a sympathetic figure when under fire from others.

That means his rivals know they swing at their own peril.

For Warren, the reluctance isn’t just situational but in line with a strategy built around focusing on her own vision rather than what her opponents are saying.

“It’s largely been Warren’s plan” not to fight with other Democrats on stage, said Christina Reynolds, a senior aide on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, who noted that this contest featured lines of questioning on issues such as housing and abortion that haven’t received much attention in previous debates this year. “They used that opportunity to pitch their own plans and contrast with Trump more than each other, which, as a Democrat, I’m OK with.”

For months, Democratic strategists have said that the party’s voters aren’t interested in seeing internecine warfare at a time when they are unified in their disdain for both President Donald Trump’s policies and his bombastic attacks on a wide variety of Americans.

The cautionary tale on that score has been Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., whose earlier scraps with Biden fueled a temporary bump in her polling but may also have turned some persuadable voters away from her campaign more permanently.

On Wednesday, Harris pointedly passed up an opportunity to take Buttigieg to task when she was asked about his campaign using an image of a Kenyan woman in association with its plan for improving the lives of black Americans.

“I believe the mayor’s apologized for that,” Harris said, turning the question to the “larger issue” of white candidates relying on black voters to help them win elections and then not returning to black communities to deliver on policy once elected.

“Show up for me,” she said.

And while one of the lower-ranked candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, did fire off several rounds of volleys at fellow Democrats, there was also a top-tier contender who may have wanted to mix it up a little more.

Sanders was ready to go toe-to-toe with other leading candidates, according to his campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, said.

“I don’t think there’s any unwillingness to engage,” he said, adding that he believed the format didn’t allow for enough direct exchange between the competitors. “There’s just not opportunity to do so unless you really have to just speak over everybody and say, ‘Hey, you know,’ insert yourself and say, ‘Stop talking everybody, I want to engage Mayor Buttigieg.’ It just didn’t allow for it.

Asked whether that means Sanders will be looking to strike at the next debate, Shakir said, “I’ll hold and reserve that.”