Second Circuit Gets Immediate Appeal After US Judge Dismisses Trump Challenge to Subpoena of Tax Returns
Within about 90 minutes of the district judge's decision, the Second Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay pending expedited review by the court. A date for the hearing was not immediately set.
October 07, 2019 at 09:28 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
President Donald Trump's lawsuit challenging a Manhattan grand jury subpoena seeking his tax records was immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after a district judge dismissed the action Monday.
Shortly after getting the case, the Second Circuit entered a temporary administrative stay.
U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero filed a 75-page order dismissing the case just before 9 a.m. Monday, and Trump's lawyers immediately filed an emergency notice of appeal.
Within about 90 minutes of the district judge's decision, the Second Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay pending expedited review by the court. Both sides proposed briefing schedules, with Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. calling for oral arguments within a week.
Late Monday, the court set out a briefing schedule slower than Vance's request but slightly faster than Trump's proposal.
Trump's brief and an amicus brief from the U.S. Department of Justice will be due Friday at 5 p.m., according to a Second Circuit clerk. Vance's brief is due Oct. 15 at 5 p.m., with Trump's reply due two days after that. Arguments will be scheduled the week of Oct. 21 at the earliest. The temporary administrative stay will remain in effect until arguments are over.
The Second Circuit appeal comes after Trump's lawyers set a deadline for Marrero to rule.
A letter Friday from Trump lawyer William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy declared that, if Marrero had not issued any ruling on Trump's motion for a stay, temporary restraining order or injunction by 9 a.m. Monday, the president's lawyers would immediately appeal to the Second Circuit.
After receiving Consovoy's letter, Marrero closed the record of the case in the Southern District of New York and asked that no further submissions be sent.
Danny Frost, a spokesman for the Manhattan DA's office, confirmed early Monday that New York County prosecutors took no action in the case over the weekend.
The current stay in the case was set to expire at 1 p.m. Monday, but Consovoy wrote that if Marrero issued a ruling after 9 a.m., the president would not have time to seek relief before his financial information was exposed. Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, had agreed to hand-deliver an initial round of documents to the grand jury at 4 p.m. on the day the stay ended.
Trump sued Mazars and Vance in September in an attempt to block the release of his tax returns to the grand jury. The president's lawyers have argued he is immune from district attorney investigation and prosecution due to the nature of his office, while Vance's lawyers defended the broad investigative power of grand juries and noted that materials delivered to a grand jury proceed in secret.
Marrero decided he had to abstain under Younger v. Harris, the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision setting out when federal courts can and cannot intervene in state cases.
In case the Second Circuit disagrees on the issues of forum discussed in Younger, Marrero went on to discuss the merits of Trump's argument for presidential immunity, finding that his motions for injunctive relief should be dismissed in a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
"The notion of federal supremacy and presidential immunity from judicial process that the President invokes, unqualified and boundless in its reach as described above, cuts across the grain of these constitutional precedents," Marrero wrote.
The writers of the U.S. Constitution were careful in "shunning" the all-encompassing immunity possessed by the British king, making sure American presidents would not have similar power, Marrero wrote.
In rulings since then, the judge wrote, courts have found that presidents are not immune from civil suits involving private conduct prior to inauguration, from subpoenas related to the conduct of other people or from providing testimony in court related to private disputes involving other people.
Memos from the U.S. Department of Justice supporting presidential immunity should not be given as much legal weight as the president gives them, Marrero wrote.
In a tweet Monday morning, Trump described the case as unprecedented.
The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2019
Vance's office declined to comment on Marrero's decision.
This is a developing report.
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 2Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 3Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 4Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 5Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
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