President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C. Photo: Al Drago/BloombergIn Case 2nd Circuit Rules Against Him, Trump Asks for Extended Stay in Tax Return Subpoena Case
The Manhattan DA's Office has opposed the motions and is expected to file its responses, according to the Trump team's motion papers.
October 15, 2019 at 02:33 PM
2 minute read
President Donald Trump's lawyers filed two motions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday morning attempting to avoid enforcement of a subpoena for the president's tax returns in case they need to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One motion explicitly dealt with what will happen if the Second Circuit rules against Trump. In that case, the president's lawyers wrote, they are seeking a stay of the court's mandate and of the grand jury subpoena's enforcement. That stay would last until Trump has filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, according to the motion.
The other motion asked the court to extend the current administrative stay on enforcement of the subpoena pending appeal. The papers were filed by William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy on behalf of Trump.
The subpoena is connected to an investigation in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., which has previously indicated it would seek the rapid production of documents from Mazars USA, the president's accounting firm, as soon as a stay expired.
The Manhattan DA's Office has opposed the motions and is expected to file its responses, according to the Trump team's motion papers.
Trump originally sued Vance and Mazars in the Southern District of New York, where U.S. District Senior Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the president's case Oct. 7. Marrero ruled that federal courts should not intervene in this kind of state matter and, in the alternative, that the president's argument for vast immunity from investigation and prosecution lacked merit.
Trump immediately appealed to the Second Circuit, and his lawyers filed his first brief there Oct. 11. Arguments are set for Oct. 23.
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This content has been archived.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
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read
Trump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
Trending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
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
