Trump's Now Suing on Both Coasts to Keep His Tax Returns Secret
Trump's lawyers at Consovoy McCarthy contend a new California law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns is unlawful.
August 06, 2019 at 02:02 PM
5 minute read
President Donald Trump and his campaign committee filed suit in federal court Tuesday to block California’s new law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax filings.
The lawsuit is no surprise, as the president’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said shortly after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the tax legislation into law on July 30 that the measure “will be answered in court.”
“In passing the law, Governor Newsom and the Democrats in the California legislature who voted for it made clear that they were retaliating against President Trump for his political associations and speech,” Bryan Weir, an associate at the Arlington, Virginia, litigation boutique Consovoy McCarthy, wrote in the 15-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for California’s Eastern District in Sacramento.
Weir is joined on the complaint by Consovoy McCarthy attorneys Thomas McCarthy, William Consovoy and Cameron Norris.
The Consovoy McCarthy firm is leading Trump’s cases in Washington and New York courts to argue in defense of continued secrecy of his financial information. The firm recently sued the House Ways and Means Committee to block any effort to acquire Trump’s New York state tax returns, and the firm is defending Trump in a House suit demanding the U.S. Treasury Department and IRS furnish copies of his federal returns. Trump is also trying to overturn two federal trial court rulings that said House committees could enforce subpoenas against his accounting firm and longtime lender, Deutsche Bank.
Separately, the California Republican Party and the Republican National sued California officials on Tuesday to obtain an injunction blocking the new law. Harmeet Dhillon of San Francisco’s Dhillon Law Group and a team from Washington’s Michael Best & Friedrich represent the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs team includes former Trump White House lawyer Stefan Passantino.
Tuesday’s suit from Trump alleged violations of federal election laws and the First Amendment. The complaint also said California’s law is preempted by the federal Ethics in Government Act, which sets rules requiring presidential candidates to disclose certain financial information.
“Ultimately, the Democrats lost this political fight in the 2016 election,” Weir wrote in the complaint. “Voters heard the political attacks from Secretary Clinton and others, and they elected President Trump anyway. Democrats across the country, however, have only become more eager to obtain the President’s tax returns for political gain.”
Though the law requires tax disclosures from both presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, it was clearly aimed at Trump, who has refused to make public his returns. Trump has said he will not do so because he is being audited. Trump was the first president in modern times to refuse to show his tax returns to voters.
“These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” Newsom said in a signing statement. “The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”
Several prominent law scholars and litigators backed the new California law, saying in a statement issued by the governor’s office that the provision doesn’t stop any candidate from appearing on the ballot.
Boies Schiller Flexner chairman David Boies, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who have each publicly criticized the president’s policies, supplied short opinions asserting the constitutionality of the new law.
“No other constitutional provision is implicated or violated by a state’s requirement that a Presidential candidate disclose tax returns,” Boies said in the statement. “Moreover, California, which permits electors to be chosen by popular vote, has an important interest in ensuring that its voters are informed.”
Another law school professor, Daniel Hemel, writing at The Washington Post recently, predicted the new law faced hurdles.
“The obstacles to the law’s effectiveness are both legal and practical. Courts may well strike down the law on constitutional grounds. But even if the law passes constitutional muster (a big ‘if’), it lacks the teeth to make Trump comply,” wrote Hemel, an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago.
The courts, Hemel said, “will have to weigh the state’s interest in election integrity against Trump’s interest in appearing on the ballot, his California supporters’ interest in being able to vote for their preferred candidate and the Republican Party’s interest in deciding how its nominee is selected.” He added: “How any given court will come down is anyone’s guess.”
The new complaint is posted below:
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'It's Based on Relationships': How an Accounting Firm Approaches Client Billing and Collections
3 minute readLaw Grads Hiring Report: Which California Law School is Placing the Most Grads in Full-Time Jobs?
Judge: TurboTax Users Who Claim They Were Eligible for Free Tax Filing Belong in Court, Not Arbitration
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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