Deutsche Bank Subpoena Judge May Draw on Ruling Against Trump
Deutsche Bank Subpoena Judge May Draw on Ruling Against Trump
(Bloomberg) -- The judge who will consider on Wednesday whether Congress can subpoena records from President Donald Trump’s bankers has a fresh ruling he can rely on: a strongly worded opinion by another federal judge saying that lawmakers have the power to demand records from the president’s accountants.
“It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington wrote in his rejection of Trump’s attempt to block a subpoena seeking documents from the accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP.
Mehta, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2014, issued his 41-page decision less than a week after holding a hearing in the case. The ruling allows the House Oversight Committee to demand Trump’s personal and business records going back to 2011.
House lawyers are hoping for equally quick and favorable action from another Obama-appointed judge, Edgardo Ramos in Manhattan, on Wednesday during a scheduled hearing on a request by Trump to block Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. from complying with subpoenas for financial records. House lawyers presented Mehta’s opinion to Ramos in a court filing just hours after that ruling.
Trump’s court battles to try to block the subpoenas presented to Mazars, Deutsche Bank and Capital One are part of his administration’s effort to push back at congressional Democrats, who are seeking information about his businesses and finances and about efforts to impede the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Acting on orders from Trump’s team, former White House Counsel Don McGahn on Tuesday defied a subpoena to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 17 refused demands for six years of the president’s tax records from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which may spur a separate lawsuit. Trump has said he’ll fight “all the subpoenas” issued by the Democratic-controlled House.
Mehta’s ruling rejected Trump’s claim that Congress didn’t have a legitimate legislative purpose for seeking the documents. He dealt a further setback to the president by declining to delay the effect of the ruling while the president appeals.
Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP in New York, called Mehta’s decision “well-written and persuasive.” Although Mehta’s decision isn’t binding on Ramos in any way, other judges are likely to consider his reasoning when faced with other subpoena challenges from the president.
“When Congress conducts an investigation and seeks non-privileged documents, the courts will generally defer to Congress so long as there is a facially valid legislative purpose behind the subpoena,” Sandick said.
If Ramos, like Mehta, allows the subpoenas to go forward, he risks the wrath of a president who’s willing to directly criticize judges in public statements and tweets.
“It’s totally the wrong decision by, obviously, an Obama-appointed judge,” Trump said in response to Mehta’s ruling.
Trump, his businesses and his family members sued in Manhattan federal court last month to block Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with the subpoenas, issued by the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees. The Trumps argued that the demands were motivated by improper political considerations.
“Never before has Congress used its investigatory powers to rifle through the private financial information of a sitting president, his family and his businesses,” the Trumps argued in a court filing. They argued that letting the demands go forward would mean that “nonstop investigations into the personal lives of presidents” will become “the new normal.”
The two banks, which are named as defendants, are effectively sitting on the sidelines of the case, waiting to comply with whatever the judge orders, as the Trumps and the two House committees fight over the subpoenas.
The case is Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 19-cv-03826, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Van Voris in federal court in Manhattan at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, David S. Joachim
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.