DC Circuit Rebuffs Lawyer's Challenge to Trump's Financial Disclosures
The court said it has no power under federal law to compel now-President Donald Trump to amend the financial disclosures he filed as a candidate in 2016.
March 15, 2019 at 10:53 AM
3 minute read
A Washington federal appeals court on Friday upheld the dismissal of a lawyer's suit challenging the sufficiency of then-candidate Donald Trump's financial disclosure reports.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel, led by Judge Stephen Williams, said it had no power under federal law to compel now-President Trump to amend the financial disclosures he filed as a candidate in 2016. Washington-based lawyer Jeffrey Lovitky, representing himself, sued Trump in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Lovitky's case tested the power of federal courts to act under the “mandamus act,” which gives authority to judges “to compel an officer or employee of the United States … to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
But the mandamus act “applies only to duties that flow from a defendant's public office. And, because the alleged duty here—directed at candidates for public office—lacks that defining characteristic, the district court had no jurisdiction under that Act over Lovitky's claims,” Williams, joined by judges David Tatel and Thomas Griffith, wrote in their unanimous ruling Friday.
Lovitky had alleged that Trump's financial disclosure violated the Ethics in Government Act by including both personal and business liabilities. Lovitky's complaint said federal law “requires disclosure of only those liabilities for which candidates are themselves liable … or for which the spouse or dependent child of the candidate are liable.”
Lovitky challenged a Trump financial disclosure filed in May 2016. “Trump's obligation to provide a 'full and complete statement' of liabilities arose out of his status as a candidate for the office of President, as he had not yet been elected,” the D.C. Circuit said.
The appeals panel said in its ruling that “detachment of the duty from the office of the defendant would lead to serious incongruities.”
“Acceptance of Lovitky's theory would thus, in principle, mean that a public official could be compelled to perform the personal financial disclosure duties of his predecessor (and who knows what other duties)—an exceedingly odd result,” Williams wrote.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly concluded last year that Lovitky lacked standing to bring his claims.
“The D.C. Circuit has made abundantly clear that it is not inclined to break ground in granting mandamus-type relief against the president,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “That court has observed that it has 'never attempted to exercise power to order the president to perform a ministerial duty.'”
Read the D.C. Circuit ruling in Lovitky v. Trump:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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