Trump Can't Block NY Grand Jury Subpoena Seeking Tax Records, 2nd Circuit Rules
The Second Circuit judges acknowledged during oral arguments that their ruling is sure to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
November 04, 2019 at 10:53 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
In a ruling Monday morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied President Donald Trump's request for a preliminary injunction protecting him from a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns.
The court in an opinion written by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann rejected the notion that the president is immune from all state criminal processes.
"After reviewing historical and legal precedent, we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non‐privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the president," Katzmann wrote.
He also said that there is no claim of executive privilege in the tax documents sought from Mazars USA. Nor do they bear any relationship to the president's official functions.
Katzmann was joined in the opinion by Circuit Judges Denny Chin and Christopher Droney.
The panel was careful to avoid making a statement on whether presidents can be prosecuted while in office, but they wrote that prohibiting states from "even investigating potential crimes committed by him for potential later prosecution" would "exact a heavy toll on our criminal justice system."
The court vacated a ruling from U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York that dismissed Trump's complaint on federal jurisdictional ground. That decision was based on the abstention doctrine articulated in the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris. That doctrine says federal court should stand down from ruling on civil matters related to an ongoing criminal matter.
The Second Circuit however agreed with the district court's finding that presidential immunity does not extend to grand jury subpoenas aimed at third parties.
Trump sued Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in September over a subpoena delivered to Trump's accounting firm, Mazars, for eight years of his tax returns.
The Second Circuit judges stressed that their ruling is not a blanket determination of the extent of presidential immunity.
"We have no occasion to decide today the precise contours and limitations of presidential immunity from prosecution, and we express no opinion on the applicability of any such immunity under circumstances not presented here," the judges wrote.
Vance and Trump's legal teams previously agreed that the DA's office will not enforce the subpoena until 10 calendar days after the Second Circuit issues its opinion. The Second Circuit judges acknowledged during oral arguments that their ruling is sure to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Any petition for certiorari must be filed during the 10-day time period, the lawyers agreed before arguments, and Trump must request that the Supreme Court hear the case in the current term.
The case was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Marrero, in his decision on Trump's motion for an injunction, criticized the president's legal team's heavy reliance on memos from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, noting that the memos do not carry the same legal weight as court opinions.
The Second Circuit judges found it unnecessary to consider whether the memos are persuasive, they wrote, because they dealt "almost exclusively" with whether presidents can be indicted—not whether they can be investigated.
A subpoena is a "perfectly ordinary way of gathering evidence," Katzmann wrote, adding that in contrast to some cases cited by the Justice Department in its amicus brief for this case, Trump's tax returns are not protected by executive privilege.
The panel made reference to the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, in which the president asked for protection of tapes of executive discussions. Katzmann wrote that case demonstrated that investigators must demonstrate specific need to overcome executive privilege claims. But the doctrine, he concluded, has no application when it is personal and not official documents that are the subject of law enforcement interest.
"Surely the exposure of potentially sensitive communications related to the functioning of the government is of greater constitutional concern than information relating solely to the president in his private capacity and disconnected from the discharge of his constitutional obligations," Katzmann wrote.
A spokesman for Vance's office declined to comment.
READ MORE:
|Crux of Trump's Challenge to NY Tax Returns Law Must Fail if State Official Is Let Out
|Deutsche Bank Doesn't Have President Donald Trump's Tax Returns, 2nd Circuit Says
|Cuomo Sees Trump's Change of Residence to Florida as Tactic to Curb Litigation Over Tax Returns
_________________________________________________________
READ the Second Circuit's ruling here:
|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 All'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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