HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.preview/supdljxu0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Consovoy McCarthyP Arlington, VA 22209
O 0yLC 703.243.9423
www.consovoymccarthy.com
May 8, 2020
Hand Delivery
and Electronic Filing
Scott S. Harris
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Re: Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP, et al., No. 19-715
Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., No. 19-760
Dear Mr. Harris:
On April 27, 2020, this Court ordered the parties to brief whether the
political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the Court's
adjudication of these cases. In Petitioners' view, they do not. As explained below,
these cases are justiciable.
To begin, there is no question as to justiciability from the perspective of
Article III standing. To have standing, a plaintiff must present an injury that
is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the
defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable
ruling. Dep't of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2565 (2019) (citation
and quotations omitted). The disclosure of Petitioners' private records to the
Committees is a 'tangible' injury; that injury is traceable to the subpoenas that
the Committees issued; and a ruling by this Court enjoining the enforcement of
those subpoenas would redress Petitioners' injury. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.
Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016). The President's interest in ensuring the confidentiality of
his private papers is no less concrete than Congressman Powell's obvious and
continuing interest in his withheld salary. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,
497 (1969). In short, resistance to [a] subpoena present[s] an obvious
controversy in the ordinary sense. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696
(1974).
That Petitioners are not the direct recipients of these subpoenas changes
nothing. In Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975), a Senate
subcommittee issued a legislative subpoena to the bank where USSF then had
an account, id. at 494. The Court held that the lawsuit had been properly
entertained even though USSF was not the direct recipient of the subpoena. Id.
at 501 n.14. When a subpoena ... seeks information directly ... the party can](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.preview/supdljxu0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)