Judge Grills Trump Lawyer in House Subpoena Fight for Financial Docs
Tuesday's hearing before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta marks the first major courtroom test in the continued standoff between the president and Democratic lawmakers.
May 14, 2019 at 12:50 PM
4 minute read
A Washington federal judge had pointed questions for Donald Trump's attorneys Tuesday, as he mulled whether the president's longtime accounting firm must turn over eight years of financial records in response to a U.S. House Oversight Committee subpoena.
The hearing before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia marks the first major courtroom test in the continued standoff between the president and Democratic lawmakers after the Trump administration resisted a spate of oversight demands from Congress.
Trump's attorney, William Consovoy, argued the subpoena at the center of the case, issued last month by House Oversight chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, is unlawful because it was not tied to a legislative purpose. Consovoy said Tuesday the congressional investigation instead veered into what was essentially a law enforcement function.
But Mehta appeared skeptical of Consovoy's argument at times, and spent the early part of the hearing grilling the lawyer on some of the reasons Congress has cited as a basis for seeking Trump's past financial statements, including determining whether Trump has violated federal ethics laws or the constitution's emoluments clauses.
At one point, Mehta even asked Consovoy whether he believed congressional investigations related to Whitewater and Watergate were valid. Consovoy didn't directly answer the question, noting he would have to look at those examples more carefully.
Mehta asked Consovoy if he was “at the end of the day” asking the court to get behind “facially acceptable purposes” for congressional demands to look into Congress' motives. Mehta suggested courts can't do that so long as Congress asserts a facially plausible and legislative basis. “That's really the end of the court's inquiry, right?” Mehta asked.
Consovoy replied that he wasn't asking the court to look into Congress' “secret motives,” but to consider lawmakers' statements and letters related to the probe. Doing so, he argued, would make clear that Congress' goal was finding examples of wrongdoing by Trump, rather than advancing any legislation.
U.S. House lawyer Douglas Letter argued that courts have long recognized Congress' broad investigative authority. He also fielded tough questioning from Mehta, who asked whether there are limits to the scope of what Congress is able to investigate when it comes to the president.
The judge noted “there are no ordinary lines here” that the court could look to to test the validity of House Oversight's actions.
“We have an obviously legitimate purpose,” Letter said Tuesday. He agreed there were some limits, noting it would be a stretch to, for example, probe the president's “totally personal life” or subpoena a diary he had when he was 12 years old.
Mehta also asked Letter about the relevance of investigating potentially illegal conduct from Trump before he took office. Letter replied that Trump had ongoing financial activities and business relationships. Congress must know whether the president has potential conflicts of interest and whether foreign governments could potentially exercise control over him because they knew he was in violation of the law, Letter said.
Mazars, represented by the law firm Blank Rome, is not taking a legal position in the case.
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 AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Examining New York Court Decisions on Website Accessibility Claims
- 2What to Expect in the Securities Enforcement Space in 2025
- 3Against All Odds—How to Try, and Win, High-Leverage Cases
- 4Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
- 5Class Gifts and NY’s 'Adoption Out' Statute: Guidance for NY Fiduciaries on Minimizing Litigation Risks
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