Trump v. Vance, Jr.

Background

Donald J. Trump sued Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., in Vance’s official capacity as District Attorney of the County of New York, and Mazars USA, LLP. The case challenged a grand jury subpoena that Vance issued to Mazars. Trump sought to prevent enforcement of the subpoena.

The court had previously dismissed an amended complaint under the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. In the alternative, the court had rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal process while in office and found that he had not shown irreparable harm sufficient to justify an injunction.

After the case returned from appeal, Trump filed a second amended complaint asserting that the subpoena was overbroad and issued in bad faith. On August 20, 2020, the court granted Vance’s motion to dismiss that complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and denied Trump’s request for discovery as moot. Trump then filed an emergency appeal and moved for a stay pending appeal, or alternatively for a temporary administrative stay.

Arguments and legal standard

A stay pending appeal uses a standard similar to the standard for a preliminary injunction. The person seeking the stay must show irreparable harm without it and either a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships that strongly favors the movant.

Trump argued that the dispute’s seriousness required preserving the existing situation while the appeal proceeded. He asserted that he could suffer irreparable harm from disclosure of his documents to Vance and the grand jury, from being denied meaningful appellate review, and because Mazars might comply with the subpoena before the appeal was resolved.

Court’s analysis

Judge Marrero rejected the irreparable-harm arguments. The court relied on its earlier conclusion that disclosure of Trump’s financial records to the District Attorney would not cause irreparable harm. It emphasized that the records sought were connected to an ongoing criminal investigation and that grand juries have a legal duty to keep their records confidential. The court therefore found no irreparable harm from disclosure to the grand jury.

The court also rejected the argument that a stay was needed to preserve appellate review. It stated that Trump had already sought relief throughout the federal judicial system and that the cited Supreme Court discussion of careful appellate review did not establish a right to another stay in this case. The court further concluded that denying a stay would not make an appeal ineffective because the alleged disclosure would not be public, and unlawful grand jury disclosure is a felony under New York law.

Finally, the court found that the subpoena’s being directed to Mazars rather than Trump did not establish irreparable harm. Mazars had appeared in the case, and the parties agreed that Trump was the real party in interest and could resist enforcement. Because Trump had not shown the required irreparable harm, the court did not need to decide the remaining stay factors, although it stated that its views about the merits and the effect of further delay remained unchanged.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiff Donald J. Trump’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.