Trump Calls Investigation From Manhattan DA Vance Unconstitutional in Newly Unsealed Complaint
In the complaint, Trump's lawyers quoted a 1997 article by Jay Bybee, who is now a judge on the Ninth Circuit, saying that the president "is the only person who is also a branch of government."
September 20, 2019 at 02:09 PM
4 minute read
President Donald Trump is arguing that the Manhattan district attorney's criminal investigation into his financial matters is unconstitutional, according to a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York on Thursday.
In the complaint, which was unsealed Friday, Trump's lawyers quoted a 1997 article by Jay Bybee, who is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying that the president "is the only person who is also a branch of government."
Trump lawyers argued that the writers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the president to be subject to criminal prosecution, because it could interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.
Quoting Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, they argued that a president cannot be "liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment" until he has already been convicted by the Senate through impeachment.
Allowing Vance to move forward would let him circumvent the Constitution's rules regarding impeachment, they wrote.
The complaint also describes attempts to reveal Trump's financial information as politically motivated attacks, in which New York government officials have played a "willing and eager" role.
"Throughout President Trump's time in office, government institutions, both federal and state, controlled by or aligned with the Democratic Party have attempted to use their power to obtain and expose his confidential financial information in order to harass him, intimidate him and prevent his reelection," Trump's legal team wrote.
In the complaint, Trump's lawyers describe the details of two grand jury subpoenas issued by Vance's office in August.
The first one requested information about alleged payments and communications between a list of people in Trump's orbit and two women who say they had sexual relationships with the president in the 2000s, which Trump denies.
Trump's legal team produced some documents in response, according to the complaint. But Vance's office said it believed the subpoena covered the Trump Organization's tax returns, and that impasse derailed the production of documents.
A second subpoena filed at the end of August was aimed at Trump's accounting firm Mazars USA, and it requested tax returns and other financial records for Trump, his companies and his foundation from Jan. 1, 2011, to the present, according to the complaint.
That subpoena is unconstitutional, Trump's lawyers argued in their complaint, calling on the federal court to block it.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Senior Judge Victor Marrero.
Harry Sandick, a white-collar defense lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, said he was surprised Trump's lawyers didn't go into more detail about why they're pursuing the case in the Southern District of New York, when the subpoena was filed in state court.
He said he expects Vance to address that in his office's response, which is due at the close of business Monday.
Trump's legal team is expected to respond Tuesday, and a hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. Wednesday. Vance has agreed to stay enforcement of the Mazars subpoena until 1 p.m. Wednesday, according to court documents.
Sandick said there's a big difference between indicting a sitting president and serving a grand jury subpoena, which may or may not ever lead to criminal charges.
Media reports indicate that Vance is investigating at least two angles related to Trump and the Trump Organization: whether business reports were illegally falsified, and the alleged payment of hush money to an adult film actress who said she had an affair with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied the accusation of an affair.
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