'It Asks for Everything': Trump Lawyers Attack Scope, Motives of Manhattan DA's Subpoena of Financial Records
William Consovoy argued that the subpoena sought information from Trump organization businesses well beyond the jurisdiction of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.
July 27, 2020 at 06:24 PM
3 minute read
President Donald Trump. (Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
Attorneys for President Donald Trump argued in a court filing Monday that a Manhattan grand jury's subpoena of his tax records was a "wildly overbroad" and bad-faith attempt to harass the president.
The filing laid out Trump's constitutional arguments for nixing the 2018 subpoena of Trump's accounting firm Mazars, after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month rejected, in a 7-2 vote, the president's claim that he was immune from state prosecution.
The high court's ruling, however, opened the door for Trump and his Consovoy McCarthy attorneys to "raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote.
In an amended complaint Monday, William Consovoy argued that the subpoena sought information from Trump organization businesses well beyond the jurisdiction of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. According to the filing, Vance had "duplicated" a "sweeping" demand by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, who had subpoenaed Trump's business records but stopped short of asking for his tax returns.
Both the scope and the grand jury subpoena and Vance's decision to issue it amounted to "harassment of the President in violation of his legal rights, including those held under Article II of the Constitution," Consovoy argued in the 16-page filing.
"The District Attorney issued a grand-jury subpoena he knew was overbroad and sought irrelevant records," the filing said.
"This is not a straightforward request to review specific business transitions; it is an overreaching demand designed to pick apart the President and each related entity from the inside out, without regard to the geographic limits of the District Attorney's jurisdiction or the scope of the grand jury's investigation," Consovoy continued.
In the filing, Consovoy argued that Vance's jurisdiction was limited to enforcing state criminal laws within New York County. However, the requested information, he said, touched "every facet of the business and financial affairs of the President," from entities across the U.S. and abroad.
"Simply put," Consovoy said, "it asks for everything."
Carey Dunne, general counsel for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, has argued that Senior U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who is overseeing the case, has already rejected similar arguments from Trump and argued that the president stands "in nearly the same situation with any other individual" as to their private papers.
Vance's office has until Aug. 3 to either answer the amended complaint or move to dismiss it. Briefing on any motion is expected to wrap by Aug. 14.
Mazars, which is the recipient of the grand jury subpoena, has taken no position in the case. Attorneys from Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker entered their appearances for Mazars earlier this month.
Trump is also represented by Mukasey Frenchman & Sklaroff and Alan S. Futerfas in New York.
READ MORE:
Trump Lawyers Agree to Expedited Litigation With Manhattan DA Over Subpoenaed Financial Records
Vance Says Grand Jury Probe 'Will Resume' After US Supreme Court Rejects Trump Immunity Claim
'We All Know It's About the President': Trump Finds Defenders at Supreme Court in Tax Returns Case
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
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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
