Plaintiffs representing Trump, his presidential campaign and the California Republican Party sued almost immediately to block California’s law, saying it was an unconstitutional infringement. | Alex Wong/Getty Images Federal judge to suspend California law compelling Trump tax release

SACRAMENTO — A California-based federal judge said today he intends to issue a preliminary injunction suspending a new state law that would require Donald Trump and other candidates to release their tax returns to appear on primary ballots.

Plaintiffs representing Trump, his presidential campaign and the California Republican Party sued almost immediately to block California’s law, saying it was an unconstitutional infringement. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed Senate Bill 27 into law in July.


U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. seemed consistently skeptical of California’s arguments in favor of the law. He acknowledged the ruling will almost certainly be appealed.

England was appointed to the court in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

“We are encouraged that the federal court tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted," said Jay Sekulow, counsel to Trump. "We look forward to the court’s written order.”

"It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violates the Constitution," he added.

Attorneys for California acknowledged that the law’s impetus was Trump’s refusal to release tax records that could illuminate the workings of his business empire.

“President Trump has started a new custom among presidential candidates, and that’s what the Legislature wanted to avoid,” said attorney Peter Chang. But he maintained that, while the motive may have had partisan roots, the civic justification applies evenly.

“Individuals don’t have the right to run for office. When they choose to run for office, they insert themselves into the public discourse,” Chang argued, and the burden of releasing returns is “outweighed by the state’s compelling interest in informing voters.”

But attorneys seeking to block the law argued otherwise, saying candidates have a right to certain measures of confidentiality.

“There is a preference among conservative voters for that viewpoint of keeping your tax returns private,” said Harmeet Dhillon, who is representing the California Republican Party, calling it “an electoral value to retain their privacy” for many Republicans.

Dhillon raised additional concerns, speaking to reporters outside the courtroom. She said losing Trump from the primary would be a "huge burden" for California Republicans and that eliminating "the most popular Republican in the country from the ballot is going to have a huge downballot effect.”

Much of the courtroom debate turned on the balance between states’ autonomy and the federal government’s supremacy in determining who is eligible for the ballot, with lawyers for the plaintiffs saying federal law is intended to prohibit a state-by-state patchwork.

Beyond that technical argument, opponents warned that the law could disenfranchise millions of voters and, more insidiously, encourage other states to enact additional ballot hurdles — a point Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown made in vetoing a similar bill in 2017. Attorneys mused about states requiring health records, genetic test results and school transcripts.

If Republican-led states had demanded Barack Obama’s transcripts when the fringe birther movement was ascendant, “that would have been met with an uproar, and rightfully so,” said Paul Rossi, an attorney for perennial California candidate Roque de La Fuente.

The California law would send the country down a “dark path,” Rossi warned, that would “fundamentally change the nature of elections in this country.”

Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.