SDNY Judge, Too, Finds Congress May Subpoena Banks in Probe of Trump's Finances
U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos said precedent clearly provided Congress with the power to conduct the kind of investigation—subpoenas of bank records and all—it is currently undertaking of the president.
May 22, 2019 at 05:30 PM
4 minute read
President Donald Trump's efforts to slow, if not defeat, multiple U.S. House of Representative probes in federal court faced another setback Wednesday in Manhattan, where U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Deutsche Bank and Capital One from responding to congressional subpoenas.
Read the opinion:
Reading his opinion from the bench, Ramos said that while the subpoenas issued to the banks from the Democrat-controlled House intelligence services were “undeniably broad,” they were also “clearly pertinent” to the “facially legitimate” investigations the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is in Congress' purview “over and over again.”
“Put simply, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,” Ramos said.
Ultimately, Ramos said, the Trump family and businesses were “highly unlikely” to succeed on the Constitutional claims before the court.
Ramos' decision largely echoed that of U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia, who also denied Trump's attempts in that court from blocking the House oversight committee's subpoena of Mazars USA, the accounting firm used by the president.
Trump's attorneys in the New York district court action added a new legal twist not seen in the D.C. action. Consovoy McCarthy partner Patrick Strawbridge, who presented in court for both the Trump family and business interests, argued that the Congressional subpoenas were limited under the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act.
Strawbridge argued that the wording of the act meant that congressional committee actions should be under the same restrictions as federal agencies and departments. Ramos, however, made it clear that the argument was not prevailing, declaring Congress “not bound” by the law.
The Trump plaintiffs also argued Congress was attempting to usurp the role of law enforcement by conducting an investigation into the president based on motives that belied the seemingly legitimate sounding nature of investigations into the financial system and foreign influence in the political system.
This argument, House general counsel Douglas Letter told the court, showed that Trump holds “a very serious misunderstanding” of Congress' role.
“He clearly sees us as a nuisance,” Letter said.
Far from an investigation solely targeting the president, the committees in the House subpoenaed approximately 10 other individuals and companies as part of its investigation that may or may not result in new legislation. Either way, Letter said, Congress' power was repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, and the President's arguments were ultimately meritless.
Ramos, in questioning Letter, asked where, then, do the district court's “draw the line” on what is appropriate for Congress.
“Respectfully, your honor, the Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear: You do not have that power,” Letter said.
Even to concerns raised by the Trump plaintiffs to the irreparable harm they might face should Congress get a hold of the requested bank and financial records of members of the president's family and his business interests, going back decades in some instances, and make that information public, Letter said it was up to Congress to decide what to do with the information it had the right to pursue and acquire.
Related:
NY Legislature OKs Bill to Release Trump's State Tax Returns to US Congress
House Dems Seek to Join Trump's Suit Over Bank Subpoenas
Michael Park Confirmed to 2nd Circuit, Becoming Trump's Third Appointee to Court
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 AllJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 2Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 3Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 4Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
- 5A Judge Is Raising Questions About Docket Rotation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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