Congressional Subpoena to Banks Is Improper Law Enforcement, Trump Lawyer Argues
Attorney Patrick Strawbridge said subpoenas of records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One were the "broadest possible subpoenas ever served that target a sitting president."
August 23, 2019 at 02:12 PM
4 minute read
An attorney for President Donald Trump, his children and the Trump Organization told a Manhattan-based appeals court on Friday that two House committees had taken on an improper law-enforcement function in issuing subpoenas for Trump family financial records.
In oral arguments that stretched on for about 90 minutes, Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy said the subpoenas of records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One were the "broadest possible subpoenas ever served that target a sitting president" and lacked any legitimate legislative purpose.
U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York in May acknowledged that the subpoenas were "very broad," but rejected Trump's motion to enjoin compliance with them. Enforcement of that order, however, was stayed pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court tackled questions of whether the courts had the ability to address the subpoenas' breadth and whether that raised separation-of-powers concerns, as the U.S. Justice Department argued in an amicus brief earlier in the week.
Douglas Letter, general counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives, said the subpoenas were part of a broader effort to investigate money laundering and foreign influence on the U.S. government.
A total of 10 subpoenas, he said, had been handed out in connection with the probe, including some that went to banks that had "absolutely nothing to do" with Trump and his family.
Letter said the subpoena served on Deutsche Bank touched on its lending to Trump but also could inform regulation of loan operations.
Letter said the bank had loaned Trump approximately $2 billion, and it would have been typical for a bank to request tax returns when making such a large loan.
It was clear from public reporting, Letter told the court, that for years Deutsche Bank had been willing to lend to Trump as a private businessman when almost no other financial institution would. The inquiry could inform Congress as it considered tougher regulation of bank lending to make sure "that doesn't happen."
Strawbridge, however, said the House committees had overstepped their legislative authority, and argued the true purpose of the subpoenas was to take up a law enforcement action against the president and his family.
Both sides said that talks over limiting the scope of the subpoenas had gone nowhere, but expressed a willingness to negotiate if the case were sent back to Ramos.
When pressed by Second Circuit Judge Jon A. Newman, Deutsche Bank attorney Raphael Prober, citing "contractual and statutory obligations," and said he could not confirm in open court whether the bank possessed Trump's tax returns, but said "significant" work had already been done in regard to the subpoenas.
The refusal kicked off a tense back-and-forth with the panel of judges, with Judge Peter Hall pointedly asking: "Do we have to go to court to seek an order?"
"I'm serious," he said.
Judge Debra Ann Livingston was the third member of the panel hearing the appeal.
The three-judge panel had two appointees of Republican presidents. Newman was appointed to the circuit by President Jimmy Carter. Hall and Livingston were each appointed by President George W. Bush.
Prober and Capital One attorney James Murphy said they would submit a filing to the court under seal, indicating what types of records they possessed.
The court did not indicate Friday when it planned to rule in the case.
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 AllFTC's New 'Click To Cancel' Rule Is Here, But Will It Survive Judicial Challenge?
9 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readEx-Moody's GC Gets 8 Months in Prison for Not Filing Tax Returns on $54M in Income
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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