Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

No 'Fishing' In Trump Tax Return Case

By Steven A. Cash
November 01, 2020

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." Judge Victor Marrero, writing in a 103 page Decision and Order dismissing the President's civil suit under the Civil Rights Act (more on that below), neither gives a fish, nor teaches how to fish — rather he explains what fishing is. Trump v. Vance, 19 Civ. 8694 (VM), 2020 WL 4861980 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020). Within weeks, the President had appealed to the Second Circuit, which upheld Judge Marrero's Decision, but left fishing for an artistic metaphor. The President has again appealed (seeking an emergency stay), this time to the Supreme Court, where, as of this writing, the matter stands.

Donald J. Trump, in his individual capacity, brought a civil action in the Southern District of New York, seeking to enjoin enforcement of a Grand Jury subpoena issued by a New York State Grand Jury to Mazars, an accounting firm, seeking President Trump's tax returns by Cyrus Vance, the New York County District Attorney. (For non-New Yorkers, New York County encompasses the island of Manhattan, and a tiny little enclave in the Bronx called Marble Hill. The Office was led for years by the legendary Robert M. Morgenthau, and is best known to non-lawyers as the setting for the TV show Law & Order.) Although the relief requested was, in effect, quashing the subpoena (and enjoining its enforcement), the case was brought under the Civil Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1983. As Judge Marrero drily noted: "Although the President is asking the Court to quash the Mazars' Subpoena, he has filed a complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 …. In short, the parties are litigating the validity of the subpoena through a procedural device not typically used for that purpose." Id., at 11. The Second Circuit noted this strangeness, adding in a footnote that "[b]oth parties appear to assume that the President's unique status allows him, alone, to bring a §1983 in federal court rather than a motion to quash in state court proceedings," adding "[w]e express no view on that question."

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.