TRUMP v. MAZARS USA LLP (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Donald J. TRUMP, et al., Appellants v. MAZARS USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, Appellees

No. 19-5142

Decided: December 30, 2020

Before: Tatel, Millett and Rao, Circuit Judges.

William Spencer Consovoy, Cameron Thomas Norris, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Donald J. Trump Stefan Charles Passantino, Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization, LLC, Trump Corporation, DJT Holdings, LLC, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, Trump Old Post Office LLC Henry Federick Schuelke, III, Lawrence H. Wechsler, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee Mazars USA, LLP Roy T. Englert, Jr., Lawrence Robbins, David Hunter Smith, Esquire, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel, Megan Barbero, Esquire, Attorney, Brooks M. Hanner, Assistant General Counsel, Josephine Thacher Morse, Attorney, Todd B. Tatelman, U.S. House of Representatives, (HOUSE) Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Alan D. Strasser, Kutak Rock LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor for Defendant-Appellee Dennis Fan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, DOJ Appellate Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Duane Morley Cox, Pro Se Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Ashwin Pradyumna Phatak, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae for Appellee Constitutional Accountability Center

JUDGMENT

This cause came to be heard on remand from the Supreme Court vacating this court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 207 L.Ed.2d 951 (2020), and on the supplemental briefs, and argument of the parties. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that given the Committee's reliance on Chairwoman Maloney's Memo, see Supplemental Addendum to the Committee's Supplemental Brief, and its stated intention to reissue the subpoena at the beginning of the new Congress, see Committee's 28(j) Letter, Dec. 21, 2020, the judgment of the district court be vacated and the case be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. We express no view as to whether this case will become moot when the subpoena expires or as to the merits of the parties’ arguments.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law