NEW YORK — A fed­er­al appeals court on Tues­day blocked a New York pros­e­cu­tor from obtain­ing Don­ald Trump’s tax returns while the president’s lawyers con­tin­ue to fight a sub­poe­na seek­ing the records. The three-judge pan­el ruled after hear­ing brief argu­ments from both sides.

Trump’s lawyers had asked for a tem­po­rary stay while they appeal a low­er-court rul­ing that grant­ed Man­hat­tan Dis­trict Attor­ney Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office access to Trump’s tax returns. A lawyer for Vance’s office had argued that fur­ther delays would only impede their investigation.

“The ques­tion at this junc­ture is quite sim­ple but also quite impor­tant,” Trump lawyer William Consovoy said. “Will the pres­i­dent be giv­en an oppor­tu­ni­ty to appeal that rul­ing before his per­son­al records are dis­closed to the grand jury and the sta­tus quo is irrev­o­ca­bly changed?”

A hear­ing on the mer­its of Trump’s lat­est appeal will be held on Sept. 25 after both sides agreed to an expe­dit­ed sched­ule — mean­ing it’s pos­si­ble the mat­ter could be decid­ed before November’s election.

Trump’s lawyers appealed to the 2nd U.S. Cir­cuit Court of Appeals last month after a dis­trict court judge reject­ed their renewed efforts to inval­i­date a sub­poe­na issued to his account­ing firm. Judge John M. Walk­er Jr. said at Tuesday’s hear­ing that the sub­poe­nas cov­er 11 enti­ties engaged in busi­ness deal­ings as far away as Europe and Dubai.

Trump has blast­ed the long-run­ning quest for his finan­cial records as a “con­tin­u­a­tion of the most dis­gust­ing witch hunt in the his­to­ry of our coun­try” and pre­dict­ed the case would again end up before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled last month that the pres­i­den­cy in itself doesn’t shield Trump from Vance’s inves­ti­ga­tion, but the high court returned the case to U.S. Dis­trict Judge Vic­tor Marrero’s court­room to allow Trump’s lawyers to raise oth­er con­cerns about the subpoena.

Trump’s lawyers then argued that the sub­poe­na was issued in bad faith and over­ly broad, might have been polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed and amount­ed to harass­ment. Mar­rero reject­ed those claims. Consovoy told the judges Tues­day that the inves­ti­ga­tion was an “arbi­trary fish­ing expedition.”

Carey Dunne, of the dis­trict attorney’s office, said Trump and his lawyers have long mis­rep­re­sent­ed the scope of the inves­ti­ga­tion as focus­ing pri­mar­i­ly on hush mon­ey pay­ments that were paid to pro­tect Trump from adul­tery alle­ga­tions. Vance’s lawyers have said they are legal­ly enti­tled to exten­sive records to aid a “com­plex finan­cial investigation.”

“The pres­i­dent has com­plained at every turn that we’ve not announced what the grand jury is look­ing at as if that itself is bad faith,” Dunne said. “But of course, what the grand jury is look­ing at is secret. We’re not allowed to make that pub­lic, which is what has led to his spec­u­la­tion about the grand jury scope. But none of this spec­u­la­tion is plausible.”

Even if Vance does get Trump’s tax records, those would be part of a con­fi­den­tial grand jury inves­ti­ga­tion and not auto­mat­i­cal­ly be made public.

Vance, a Demo­c­rat, began seek­ing the Repub­li­can president’s tax returns from his long­time account­ing firm over a year ago, after Trump’s for­mer per­son­al lawyer Michael Cohen told Con­gress that the pres­i­dent had mis­led tax offi­cials, insur­ers and busi­ness asso­ciates about the val­ue of his assets.

Con­gress is also pur­su­ing Trump’s finan­cial records, though the Supreme Court last month kept a hold on the bank­ing and oth­er doc­u­ments that Con­gress has been seek­ing and returned the case to a low­er court.

Trump is the only mod­ern pres­i­dent who has refused to release his tax returns. Before he was elect­ed, he had promised to do so.