US Department of Justice Weighs In on Manhattan DA's Fight for Trump Tax Returns
The DOJ lawyer wrote that his office supports "interim relief as necessary to allow for appropriate briefing of the weighty constitutional issues involved."
October 02, 2019 at 05:17 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Department of Justice filed documents Wednesday in an ongoing legal battle for President Donald Trump's tax returns, which were subpoenaed by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in August.
U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Joshua Garner argued that it is "correct and important" for Trump's subpoena challenge to move forward in federal court and not state court. Vance's lawyers have repeatedly said a state subpoena should be challenged in state court.
Garner, who is assigned to the federal programs branch of the Justice Department's civil division, wrote that his office supports "interim relief as necessary to allow for appropriate briefing of the weighty constitutional issues involved." The court schedule should allow time for "considered deliberation," he wrote.
Trump's legal team has requested an injunction prohibiting Vance from enforcing the subpoena and prohibiting Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, from complying with it.
In a filing late Sept. 24, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman wrote to support a temporary restraining order while he and his colleagues decided whether to participate in the case, given the constitutional issues raised by the president.
After an initial hearing Sept. 25, U.S. Senior District Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York laid out the timeline for the U.S. Attorney's Office response and told lawyers for Trump and Vance to try to work out a plan on their own.
Vance's office has agreed not to enforce the subpoena until 1 p.m. Oct. 7 or 1 p.m. the day that falls two business days after Marrero rules on pending motions, whichever is sooner.
Some of the points Garner made in his filing were similar to arguments made by Trump's lawyers in their complaint. Garner wrote that the president's job is unique and its demands unceasing.
The fact that the recipient of the subpoena was Trump's accounting firm and not the president is immaterial, Garner wrote.
Garner asserted that comity between state and federal courts is a two-way street.
"A proper understanding of comity requires a federal court in these circumstances to exercise its jurisdiction rather than abstain," he wrote.
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 All'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readNY Appeals Court Grants J&J's Subpoena for Talc Expert as 'Clearly Relevant'
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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