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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.