• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsGlobal InsightsAmerica
20 May 2019 11:27 AM GMT

PIO Judge Rules Against Trump in Lawsuit Meant to Block Democrats’ Subpoena

By Legal Era

United States District Court Judge Amit Mehta endorsed Congress’ broad authority to investigate the President Donald Trump about his finances. Trump’s lawyers had argued that Congress’ subpoena did not have a legitimate legislative purpose and was therefore invalid. However, Judge Mehta held another more constructive view.President Trump rejected the judgment calling it crazy and “a...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Donald-Trump

United States District Court Judge Amit Mehta endorsed Congress’ broad authority to investigate the President Donald Trump about his finances. Trump’s lawyers had argued that Congress’ subpoena did not have a legitimate legislative purpose and was therefore invalid. However, Judge Mehta held another more constructive view.

President Trump rejected the judgment calling it crazy and “a wrong decision by an Obama-appointed judge.” He vowed to appeal it.

Writing in a 41-page memorandum, Mehta opined that while “there are limits on congress’s investigative authority, those limits do not substantially constrain congress.” Trump’s lawyers had sued in Washington, D.C. Federal Court asking that the subpoena be blocked declaring the Democrats had “declared all-out political war” against Trump. Mehta held “So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which legislation could be had, Congress is acting within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars.” Mazars handle President Trump’s finances.

Mehta further wrote, “These are facially valid legislative purposes and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.”

The Democratic-led Committee argued the subpoena is necessary in order to reinforce ethics and disclosure laws and curtail violation of emoluments clause.

Trump’s legal team argued that the Democrat’s actions fell way beyond the Congress’ legitimate oversight functions as a legislative body. However, Mehta countered this argument suggesting in such case many historic congressional investigations, including Watergate, might be considered invalid.

Judge Mehta’s arguments found favor in many quarters within the United States statutory dignitaries. House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings hailed the decision as a “resounding victory for the rule of law.” He added, “”The Court recognized the basic but crucial fact that Congress has authority to conduct investigations as part of our core function under the Constitution.”

Next Story
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X
We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok