Trump's Attorneys Accuse Congress, Letitia James of Colluding to Expose President's Taxes
Attorneys for the president have asked a D.C. federal judge to allow them to conduct discovery before deciding whether to transfer a fight over Trump's taxes to Manhattan.
September 10, 2019 at 01:36 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Attorneys for President Donald Trump are planning to pursue evidence that they argue will shows a coordinated campaign between congressional Democrats and New York state officials to expose the president's financial information, which is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit from the president.
They asked a federal judge in a new court filing for the chance to conduct discovery before a decision is made on whether to transfer that litigation from Washington, D.C., to federal court in Manhattan.
Trump is represented by William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy.
"But if the New York defendants are conspiring with the congressional defendants, all of that conduct can be attributed to the New York defendants too," Trump's attorneys wrote. "And they are conspiring."
The lawsuit, filed in July, seeks to strike down a New York state law called the TRUST Act, that would allow members of Congress to obtain copies of Trump's state tax returns. His attorneys targeted the lawsuit at Congress, but also New York Attorney General Letitia James and state tax Commissioner Michael Schmidt.
James has filed a motion to transfer the case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the Southern District of New York.
She's argued that since the litigation is targeted at state officials from New York, and aims to strike down a law enacted and utilized in New York, the lawsuit belongs in the Empire State. Trump's attorneys disagreed in the new filing, arguing that the lawsuit is aimed at an act of Congress, which would initiate any request to New York for his state tax filings.
"It is an action by the sitting president of the United States against a committee of Congress to challenge its constitutional authority to obtain his private tax information," they wrote. "New York is merely a custodian who is willing to divulge the president's information to Congress."
They likened the case to a conflict between two branches of federal government over the New York state law, rather than litigation between the president and officials in New York.
If the motion from James is rejected, the case would remain before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee.
James criticized the filing from Trump's attorneys in a statement Tuesday, arguing that their claims had no "legal basis" and urging Nichols to grant their request.
"The president's latest opposition papers make preposterous arguments that are nothing more than personal attacks without a legal basis or in good faith, which is why we believe this case deserves to be dismissed," James said. "We remain confident that the TRUST Act is constitutional, which is why we will continue to defend it."
Democrats in Congress have, in recent months, taken a handful of actions aimed at learning more about the financial information of Trump and his family. They've sent subpoenas to Trump's personal accounting firm, Mazars, and banks that have offered him financing.
James has also issued subpoenas to two banks for records related to financing for four Trump Organization projects, and a failed bid to purchase the Buffalo Bills NFL team.
Each of those inquiries was made in response to testimony before Congress by Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, that the president mischaracterized his assets to banks and insurance companies.
Trump's attorneys said in the new filing, and in an amended version of their lawsuit last month, that the timing and similar nature of those requests show a "joint effort to obtain and expose the president's financial information."
They argued in the new filing that they should be allowed to pursue information about any coordinated efforts between state officials in New York and Democrats in Congress before a motion to transfer the case is considered.
"The president is entitled to discovery on the nature, scope, and contours of this coordination between the attorney general and the House," they wrote.
The new filing almost dared the federal court to drop James and the state tax commissioner from the litigation, rather than transferring it to New York. James, in her motion, had said either option would be in their favor.
Trump's attorneys wrote that removing James and the state tax commissioner from the lawsuit wouldn't change anything about the litigation. It would still seek to enjoin Congress from taking advantage of the law, which would effectively nullify the statute.
"If the New York defendants are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or venue, the president intends to proceed in this district against the congressional defendants alone," they wrote. "The president will also continue to challenge the constitutionality of the TRUST Act against the congressional defendants."
They argued that the lawsuit would still be in Washington, D.C., because the harm to Trump would be caused by Congress choosing to invoke the law to seek his state tax returns. That harm would only be alleviated by barring Congress from doing so, they argued.
At the same time, Trump's attorneys urged Nichols to reject the motion from James until Congress actually requests his state tax returns from New York. State officials have agreed to not provide those filings while a motion to dismiss the litigation is pending.
That would provide a more concrete record for them to make a motion to resolve their concerns about venue, Trump's attorneys wrote, and could avoid the need for litigation altogether.
"It also might allow the court to avoid reaching the merits altogether, if the committee represents that it will not request the president's state returns or makes no request before the 116th Congress adjourns," they wrote.
The New York Attorney General's Office did not immediately comment on the new filing Tuesday.
READ MORE:
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 AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
Trending Stories
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