Justice Dept., Silent on Trump's Subpoena Fights, Is Invited to Express Views
"Why is the Justice Department not participating to protect the office of the president, if that's the primary basis of your argument?" Judge Neomi Rao asked a private lawyer for Trump last week.
July 15, 2019 at 11:56 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department, silent for months as President Donald Trump's private lawyers have fought to block congressional subpoenas targeting financial information, was invited Monday to tell a Washington federal appeals court what it thinks about the litigation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is weighing Trump's challenge to a House Oversight Committee subpoena that was directed to his longtime accounting firm Mazars USA. A three-judge panel on Friday heard from the lawyers in the case for more than two hours, and at times the judges expressed some skepticism at the “stunning” arguments from an attorney for Trump who argued the presidency is largely immune from the broad investigative and oversight authority of Congress.
The panel judges—Patricia Millett, David Tatel and Neomi Rao—on Monday invited the Justice Department to express its views, and the court set a deadline of Aug. 6. Invitations to the Justice Department to participate in federal appeals courts are rare, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court regularly solicit the views of the Justice Department in cases where the government is not a direct party.
Trump is represented in the Mazars case by William Consovoy of the Washington boutique Consovoy McCarthy and Stefan Passantino of Michael Best & Friedrich. Mazars has a team from Blank Rome on its side. The accounting firm has not taken a public position on the subpoena, which was upheld as lawful by a Washington trial judge in May.
The absence of the Justice Department in Trump's subpoena challenge came up during oral arguments last week in the D.C. Circuit. Rao pressed Consovoy about why the Justice Department had not appeared in the dispute. She noted that many of the arguments from Consovoy “relate to the unique constitutional status of the office of the presidency” and the “infringement on his authority.”
“Why is the Justice Department not participating to protect the office of the president, if that's the primary basis of your argument?” Rao asked.
Consovoy said “naturally” the president's personal lawyer would advocate in a case involving Trump's accounting firm. He said he did not know why DOJ was not involved. “I can only speak for my participation and not others,” he said.
A spokesperson from the Justice Department on Monday declined to comment about the D.C. Circuit's invitation to file a friend-of-the-court brief.
The Justice Department also is not a party in the Second Circuit, where Trump's private lawyers are challenging congressional subpoenas targeting Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Lawyers for the two financial institutions—Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld represents the bank, and Murphy & McGonigle represents the credit card company—have not stated any public views on the subpoenas.
The Justice Department's civil division, led by Jody Hunt, is defending Trump and the office of the president in various other lawsuits involving congressional Democrats.
Appellate lawyers in the civil division last week urged the D.C. Circuit to shut down a suit from more than 200 House and Senate Democrats alleging Trump has violated the Constitution's anti-conflicts provisions that limit the president's receipt of gifts and money from domestic and foreign sources.
Separately, the House has sued the Treasury Department and IRS to obtain copies of several years' worth of Trump's tax returns. That case is pending in front of U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden. The Justice Department is disputing that Congress has any legitimate legislative need to see Trump's tax returns, which he has long vowed to disclose but for a claimed pending IRS audit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbout to Become a Partner? Here's What to Know About Your Newfound Wealth
10 minute readHolland & Knight Hires Chief Business Development and Marketing Officer From EY
2 minute readBankruptcy Filings Surged in First Half of 2024 Amid Uptick in Big Chapter 11 Cases
3 minute read11th Circuit: Relying on CPA Not 'Reasonable Cause' to File Late Tax Returns, Even With E-Filed Forms
Trending Stories
- 1Cleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
- 2Legaltech Rundown: Aracor AI launches AI-Powered Legal Platform, the Sedona Conference Publishes Commentary on Cross-Border Discovery, and More
- 3'Vague' Product Testing Allegations Sink Benzene Class Action
- 44 Controversial Issues Complicating the E-Discovery Space
- 5$60.6M Texas Verdict Awarded to Victim in Barroom Assault
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250