Calif. High Court Holds Off Ruling on Law Forcing Trump to Hand Over Tax Returns
The California Supreme Court, however, indicated the burden will be on the state to defend the new law requiring presidential candidates to air their tax returns publicly.
August 21, 2019 at 06:54 PM
3 minute read
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to immediately block a newly enacted state law that would force President Donald Trump to disclose his tax returns to appear on the 2020 primary ballot.
In a unanimous order, however, the justices scheduled expedited briefing in the case and asked the state to explain why they should not grant California Republicans’ request to declare the law unconstitutional.
California’s lawyers will have until Sept. 4 to respond. Attorneys for the California Republican Party and its chairwoman, Jessica Millan Patterson, must reply by Sept. 11.
“We’re very pleased,” said Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk partner Chuck Bell, who is representing the Republican Party and its leader. “The fact that the court issued an expedited schedule and an [order to show cause] is notable.”
The state lawsuit is separate from five similar suits pending in federal district court. Four of those cases, including one brought by Trump and his presidential campaign, have been consolidated in the Sacramento federal courtroom of U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. of the Eastern District of California.
England has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Sept. 19 and said in an order that he intends to issue a decision on the request for a preliminary injunction by the end of September.
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the parties to consider state laws dating back almost 50 years in their responses. Justices cited Proposition 4, the 1972 voter-approved ballot measure creating rules for an open presidential primary, as well as a Senate Constitutional Amendment enacted the previous year requiring the secretary of state to place “all recognized candidates for president” on the ballot.
The court also asked for discussion of “any guidelines, including internal measures and protocols, that the secretary of state has employed in the intervening decades to assess who is a ‘recognized’ candidate for purposes” of setting the ballot under constitutional rules.
California’s law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, would require any presidential or gubernatorial candidate to disclose five years of income tax returns to qualify for the primary election ballot. Though the law does not name Trump specifically, legislative Democrats and Newsom said the measure is aimed at the president, who has refused to make public his tax documents as past leaders have done.
Read more:
California Defends New Law Requiring Candidates to Disclose Tax Returns
Boies, Boutrous and Chemerinsky Back California’s Squeeze on Trump’s Tax Returns
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 AllWillkie Farr & Gallagher Drives Legal Challenge for Uber Against State's Rideshare Laws
5 minute readReport: US Attorney E. Martin Estrada to Resign From California's Central District
3 minute readTrending 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