Arguments in New York stemmed from House decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s records

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled against Donald Trump on Wednesday, saying he will not block recent congressional subpoenas that are demanding his financial records from two banks.

“I will not enjoin enforcement of the subpoenas,” Judge Edgardo Ramos said, after hearing arguments from lawyers for Trump and Congress. Ramos’s decision came as Trump continues his battle over congressional oversight.

Shortly before the arguments, Trump said he would not work with congressional Democrats until they dropped their investigations of him. Trump had also previously sworn that he would fight “all of the subpoenas”.

The arguments in New York stemmed from the House intelligence and financial services committees’ decision in April to subpoena Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s financial records.

The subpoenas also sought banking records of Trump’s children, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka, as well as documents relating to some of his businesses. In the suit, Trump said these financial institutions “have long provided business and personal banking services to plaintiffs”.

Trump filed a lawsuit against the banks on 29 April to block these subpoenas, alleging that they “were issued to harass President Donald J Trump, to rummage through every aspect of his personal finances, his businesses, and the private information of the president and his family, and to ferret about for any material that might be used to cause him political damage”.

Patrick Strawbridge, one of Trump’s lawyers, reiterated in court his position that Congress has overstepped its role in issuing such broad subpoenas.

“That is law enforcement activity,” Strawbridge told Ramos, later arguing, “This is a subpoena for private financial records, it is not backed by a valid (legislative) purpose.”

A lawyer for the Congress countered these subpoenas were misconstrued as only targeting Trump and his family. He said they were part of a “complex investigation across a whole industry, not just Mr Trump.”

Making his ruling, Ramos stated that the power of Congress to conduct investigations was integral to its role, saying the subpoenas had a “legitimate legislative purpose”.

He also rejected Trump’s arguments that the committees had strayed too far from their legislative mission, saying the subpoenas “do not constitute impermissible law enforcement activities”.

In a statement to the cable channel CNBC after the ruling Deutsche Bank said: “We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations.”

But it was also revealed in court that the congressional committees had agreed not to enforce the subpoenas for seven days, giving Trump’s legal team the opportunity to appeal.

One of Trump’s lawyers said that an appeal was a “safe bet”.

The proceeding comes amid the president’s ongoing battle against congressional oversight, in which he has reportedly vowed to fight “all of the subpoenas”.

Israel plans to name settlement on occupied land after Trump Read more

The resistance so far from Trump officials has been fierce.

The former White House counsel Donald McGahn on Tuesday flouted a subpoena to appear before Congress, as Trump blocked him from testifying on Robert Mueller’s report about Russian election meddling. On 8 May, House Democrats voted to hold the US attorney general, William Barr, in contempt for refusing to disclose an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report.

Trump, meanwhile, suffered a legal defeat in his fight against oversight on Monday, when a Washington DC federal judge refused to stop one of his accounting firms from complying with a House subpoena.

Daniel R Alonso, an attorney at Exiger and former federal prosecutor, said that the Washington ruling was not binding in other federal courts – but that judges elsewhere “can take it into account” when making their own decisions.

“Judges are allowed to make up their own minds, and they take into consideration the law and legal precedent – including cases from other district courts,” Alonso told the Guardian.