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.
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:
Trump Sues Manhattan DA Vance in Federal Court in Wake of Tax Subpoenas
Trump's Attorneys Accuse Congress, Letitia James of Colluding to Expose President's Taxes
NY AG James Asks Court to Rebuff Bid by Trump's Lawyers to Keep State Taxes Suit in DC
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 All
Private Equity Giant KKR Refiles SDNY Countersuit in DOJ Premerger Filing Row
3 minute read
Skadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
- 2Whether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
- 3Am Law 200 Firms Announce Wave of D.C. Hires in White-Collar, Antitrust, Litigation Practices
- 4K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
- 5'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
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
