University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Trump v. Deutsche Bank PR-NY-0009
Docket / Court 1:19-cv-03826 ( S.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Case Summary
This case was brought by former President Donald J. Trump, his children, and other affiliates (“Plaintiffs”) in response to Congressional subpoenas issued to the former President’s banks, Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”) and Capital One Financial Corp. (“Capital One”). The banks ... read more >
This case was brought by former President Donald J. Trump, his children, and other affiliates (“Plaintiffs”) in response to Congressional subpoenas issued to the former President’s banks, Deutsche Bank AG (“Deutsche Bank”) and Capital One Financial Corp. (“Capital One”). The banks notified him they would be complying with the subpoenas absent court intervention. Trump initiated this suit against the banks in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in his capacity as a private citizen on April 29, 2019.

The complaint alleged that the Congressional subpoenas, which were issued by the House Committee on Financial Services (“Financial Services Committee”) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“Intelligence Committee”), were initiated to harass the President, because they requested tax returns and other personal financial documents. In addition, the complaint alleged that the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, and therefore exceeded the Committees’ authority under the Constitution. The complaint also claimed that the subpoenas violated the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 3403(a) because they did not comply with RFPA certification procedures. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief quashing the subpoenas, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the disclosure of documents, and attorneys’ fees.

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs argued that they would face irreparable harm if the subpoenaed documents were disclosed. Specifically, they claimed that the disclosure of confidential documents could compromise the President’s reputation, thereby hindering his ability to do his job. They also claimed that disclosure would set a precedent that undercuts judicial review of the constitutionality of such subpoenas, thereby “immuniz[ing] the subpoena from challenge.”

In addition to arguing irreparable harm, the Plaintiffs also claimed that the House Committees lacked a legitimate legislative purpose for the subpoenaed documents, noting that the Committees “have never identified a single piece of legislation within their respective jurisdictions that they are considering.”

On May 3, 2019, the House Committees filed a motion to intervene to oppose the President’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Financial Services Committee asserted that the purpose of the request was to conduct investigations into financial policies to ensure sound lending practices and the prevention of loan fraud. The Intelligence Committee sought to conduct investigations into “efforts by Russia and other foreign entities to influence the U.S. political process during and since the 2016 election.” Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the House Committees’ motion on May 3.

Judge Ramos denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2019. 2019 WL 2204898. The Plaintiffs responded by filing an interlocutory appeal the next day.

On December 3, 2019, Judge Jon Newman of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part the District Court’s ruling, finding that the Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their statutory and constitutional claims, a requirement for receiving preliminary injunctive relief. Judge Newman remanded the case to a limited extent to exclude private documents that the Judge found to be lacking in relation to a legitimate legislative purpose. 943 F.3d 627.

The Plaintiffs appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 6, 2019, staying this case until the hearing on a related case, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, concluded.

On July 9, 2020, in the hearing for Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, the Supreme Court noted its concern about maintaining the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In the interest of preserving the separation of powers, the Court articulated a higher standard that Congress failed to meet when issuing a subpoena to the President. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that courts needed to apply the following standards when examining Congressional subpoenas:
  1. Carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers;

  2. Insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support this objective;

  3. Be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a legislative purpose; and

  4. Carefully assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.
The Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order. Trump v. Mazars, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019. As of March 18, 2021, the case is ongoing.

Anjali Baliga - 03/26/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Enumerations Clause
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief denied
Plaintiff Type
Closely-held (for profit) corporation
Private Plaintiff
Defendant(s) Capital One Financial Corp.
Deutsche Bank, AG
House Committee on Financial Services
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Plaintiff Description President of the United States with his children and business affiliates
Class action status sought No
Class action status outcome Not sought
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filed 04/29/2019
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PR-DC-0016 : Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives (D.D.C.)
Court Docket(s)
S.D.N.Y.
02/25/2021
1:19-cv-03826
PR-NY-0009-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
S.D.N.Y.
04/29/2019
Complaint [ECF# 1]
PR-NY-0009-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D.N.Y.
05/03/2019
[Consent Letter Motion for Leave to File intervention] [ECF# 25 & 25-1]
PR-NY-0009-0002.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D.N.Y.
05/03/2019
Notice of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 26]
PR-NY-0009-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D.N.Y.
05/03/2019
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 27]
PR-NY-0009-0004.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D.N.Y.
05/22/2019
Order [ECF# 59] (2019 WL 2204898)
PR-NY-0009-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
10/10/2019
[Opinion] [Ct. of App. ECF# 199] (940 F.3d 146)
PR-NY-0009-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
12/03/2019
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 214] (943 F.3d 627)
PR-NY-0009-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
12/14/2020
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 284]
PR-NY-0009-0008.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Hall, Peter W. (Second Circuit) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0006 | PR-NY-0009-0007
Livingston, Debra Ann (Second Circuit) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0006 | PR-NY-0009-0007
Newman, Jon Ormond (D. Conn., Second Circuit) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0006 | PR-NY-0009-0007
Ramos, Edgardo (S.D.N.Y.) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0005 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Consovoy, William (Virginia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0001 | PR-NY-0009-0003 | PR-NY-0009-0004 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Mukasey, Marc Lee (New York) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0001 | PR-NY-0009-0003 | PR-NY-0009-0004 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Norris, Cameron T. (Virginia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0001 | PR-NY-0009-0003 | PR-NY-0009-0004 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Strawbridge, Patrick (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0001 | PR-NY-0009-0003 | PR-NY-0009-0004 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Barbero, Megan (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Clouse, Sarah E (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002
Esbrook, Leslie (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Feldman, Steven David (New York) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Hanner, Brooks Mckinly (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002 | PR-NY-0009-9000
Morse, Josephine T (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Moyer, Thomas C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Moyne, Parvin Daphne (New York) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Murphy, James Alwin (New York) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Prober, Raphael Adam (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Ross, Steven R. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Shapiro, Kristin A (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002
Smith, David Hunter (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-9000
Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PR-NY-0009-0002 | PR-NY-0009-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -