House Democrats Urge SCOTUS to Deny Stay of Deutsche Bank Subpoenas on Trump Records
"Legislative efforts to secure the financial system from abuse have obvious importance," House general counsel Douglas Letter said.
December 11, 2019 at 12:39 PM
4 minute read
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a stay preventing Congress from enforcing subpoenas seeking financial records on President Donald Trump and his business from two banks, or to expedite the case if the justices do issue a stay.
House general counsel Douglas Letter said in Wednesday's filing that subpoenas issued by two Democratic-controlled committees to Deutsche Bank and Capital One are for "legitimate legislative purposes" and should be enforced without further delay.
The subpoenas targeted non-privileged records related to Trump, his businesses and family members and will aid the House's efforts to root out foreign influence in the 2020 presidential elections, Letter wrote.
"Legislative efforts to secure the financial system from abuse have obvious importance. And nothing is more urgent than efforts to guard against foreign influence in our systems for electing officials, particularly given the upcoming 2020 elections," Letter said.
Wednesday's filing comes after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg temporarily stayed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ordered "prompt compliance" with the set of subpoenas from the House Financial Services Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Ginsburg's order remains in place until Friday evening.
The Second Circuit's split ruling found a "clear and substantial" public interest in enforcing the subpoenas and directed a lower court to implement procedures to protect some "sensitive personal information" and documents. Unlike other rulings involving Trump's financial records, however, it did not delay the effect of the decision, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump attorney William Consovoy, of Consovoy McCarthy, on Dec. 6 filed an emergency petition, saying House lawyers rejected his request to speed up the appeals process in exchange for a stay.
He said the Deutsche Bank litigation closely mirrored a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld similar subpoenas of Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, but blocked their immediate enforcement.
That case has also been petitioned to the Supreme Court, along with a separate challenge from the Second Circuit involving grand jury subpoena issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.
As in the Mazars case, Consovoy argued, the subpoenas of Deutsche Bank and Capital One raised important separation of powers issues, and the banks should not be forced to produce documents until the justices are given a chance to weigh in.
"The issue at this stage is straightforward: whether the president will be allowed to petition for review of an unprecedented demand for his personal papers, or whether he will be deprived of that opportunity because the committees issued these subpoenas to third parties with no incentive to test their validity," Consovoy wrote in the petition. "This choice should be easy."
On Wednesday, Letter distinguished the Deutsche Bank case from the Mazars case, saying that it turned on a separate set of facts. If the high court were to grant a further stay in the case, Letter said the justices should treat the papers already submitted as a petition for cert or condition any stay on the "expeditious filing" of such a request.
Speed and timing could be an issue for the various investigations seeking Trump's financial records, which is why legal scholars have said the president's attorneys have tried to use procedural hurdles to delay litigation. If Democrats were to lose control of the House in the 2020 elections, the chances of Republicans continuing with the vast investigations into Trump, his finances and his administration are slim to none.
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
© 2025 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 AllAdvertising Tech Likely to Draw More Scrutiny in 2025 Over Consumers' Data, Lawyers Say
5 minute readNew Year Brings New Partner Hires for White & Case, Venable, Winston & Strawn
3 minute read3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
- 2A Q&A with Sidley Austin's London Leader
- 3New York-Based Harris Beach Combines With Connecticut-Based Murtha Cullina, Forming NE Powerhouse
- 4New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
- 5Thursday Newspaper
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