Trump to further challenge Manhattan DA subpoena after Supreme Court decision on tax records


In a joint filing with the lower court judge, Trump’s attorneys cited a concurring opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and accompanied by Neil Gorsuch, who said the president “may present further arguments as appropriate “including whether the subpoena is too broad and whether it would hamper the President’s ability to carry out his work.

“The president intends to raise some or all of these arguments in his next second amended complaint,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the President was not immune to a state grand jury investigation, awarding Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance a victory. Her office is investigating whether the president and his company violated state law related to secret money payments made to women who alleged issues with the president and their reimbursement to former repairman Michael Cohen.

Trump argued in writing that the district court must wait to act until the Supreme Court has ruled on the case, but Vance’s office questioned that idea. “[T]The Second Circuit never lost its power to act on this matter, “Vance’s office wrote.” And the mandate of the Second Circuit to forward the matter to this Court in accordance with the Order of the Supreme Court … gave this Court the power to act. “

The district attorney’s office urged the district court to proceed quickly, writing that “this court must carry out any remaining proceedings with the same expedition it sent when it first rejected the president’s allegations in the fall of 2019, in light of continuing concerns about the potential loss of critical evidence and expiration of the statutes of limitations. “

Vance’s office said the judges had already rejected some of Trump’s arguments, including that the subpoena was politically motivated. Vance’s office noted that US District Judge Victor Marrero discovered months ago that “no bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance requiring equitable relief was demonstrated.”

The district attorney’s office emphasized that the Supreme Court had rejected the idea of ​​a high standard for a state subpoena issued to a sitting president, saying Trump was trying to “circumvent that standard.”

“Equally important,” the office’s attorneys wrote about Trump’s proposal, “it overlooks the fact that he has already made substantially similar allegations in the amended Claim, which this court rejected.”

Vance’s office again resorted to Marrero’s previous decision to dispute the possible argument that complying with the subpoena would be a burden on Trump, saying the judge had previously rejected that idea.

Vance’s office described Trump’s discovery suggestion “premature,” and wrote that even if the President filed an amended complaint to stimulate the discovery, “the discovery of the district attorney’s motives would be highly erratic and inappropriate.”

The district attorney’s office said it would agree not to enforce the summons seeking eight years of Trump tax returns and financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA until July 27, or if Trump files a new lawsuit. It will not seek to enforce the subpoena until seven days after the court makes a decision.

Both sides also agreed to an accelerated schedule, which if approved by the court, could mean that motions would be completed in the case in mid-August.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled before Marrero on Thursday morning.

This story has been updated with additional information.

.