Case Document 25 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaimifj?, V. Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02173 (CJN) COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, et Defendants. ORDER On July 8, 2019, New York?s governor signed the Tax Returns Released Under Speci?c Terms Act (the Act) into law. Complaint, Dkt. 1 (?CompL?) 48, 58; see also N.Y. Tax Code (2019) (codifying the TRUST Act). The Act amended the New York Code to require the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (?Commissioner?), ?upon written request? from the chairperson of one of three congressional committees, and if certain conditions are met, to ?furnish such committee with any current or prior year [tax] reports or returns Speci?ed in such request that were ?led? in New York by ?the president of the United States, vice?president of the United States, member of the United States Congress representing New York state,? or other public of?cial enumerated in the statute. Tax On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Donald J. Trump sued the Commissioner, the Attorney General of New York State (collectively, the ?New York Defendants?), and the Committee on Ways and Means of the US. House of Representatives (?Committee?), citing concerns that the Committee?s Chairman, Representative Richard Neal, would seek to employ the TRUST Act to Case Document 25 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 4 request and receive Mr. Trump?s New York state tax returns. See Compl. 6, 62??68 (alleging media reports of pressure on Chairman Neal to request Mr. Trump?s state tax returns through the TRUST Act).1 The next day, Mr. Trump ?led an Emergency Application for Relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 (2012), asking the Court ?to preserve the status quo,? Dkt. 6-1 at 5, by enjoining Chairman Neal ?from requesting or receiving Plaintiff?s state tax returns from New York until Plaintiff obtains an Opportunity for judicial review,? id. at 1. While Mr. Trump acknowledged that ?it might be premature for [him] to press his claims challenging the legality of a request that has not yet been made,? id. at 5, he contended that equitable relief was appropriate because he seeks relief after the Chairman requests his state tax returns, the returns might be disclosed before he can be heard in court,? id. at 1. In other words, Mr. Trump raised the concern that his claims could become ripe and then moot almost instantaneously and without notice to him or the Court, thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction to decide his claims. See I'd. at 5m6; see, Wagner v. TayZor, 836 F.2d 566, 571 (DC. Cir. 1987) (?If the court may eventually have jurisdiction of the substantive claim, the court?s incidental equitable jurisdiction . . . gives the court authority to impose a temporary restraint in order to preserve the status quo pending ripening of the claim for judicial review?). Following further brie?ng, see Dkt. 14; Dkt. 17; Dkt. 21, the Court held a hearing on the Emergency Application. At the close of the hearing, the Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer ?to determine whether they can reach an agreement regarding how best to proceed in light of . . . three goals?: (1) ?ensuring that Mr. Trump?s claims do not become moot before they get litigated?; (2) ?treading as as possible, if at all, on separation of powers and Speech or Mr. Trump asserts two claims: (1) by invoking the TRUST Act, the Committee would violate Article I of the US. Constitution and the Rules of the House of Representatives, Compl. 7042; and (2) the TRUST Act violates the First Amendment, id. 74m76. Case Document 25 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 4 Debate Clause concerns?; and (3) ?adjudicating . . . this diSpute only when it is actually ripe and has a fuller record than presently exists.? Transcript of July 29, 2019 Hearing at 53?64. The Court further ordered the Parties to file a Joint Status Report on July 30, 2019, ?setting forth any agreement they have reachedmor in the event they are unable to reach agreement, their reSpective positionswregarding how this case should proceed.? Min. Order (July 29, 2019). On July 30, 2019, the Parties ?led their Joint Status Report, Dkt. 22, and the next day the Court convened a telephonic conference. Although the Report stated that the Parties had been ?unable to reach agreement,? id. at 1, during the conference Mr. Trump indicated that he had no objection to the Court?s adopting the proposal made by the New York Defendants in the Joint Status Report, as clari?ed and modi?ed during the conference. See Transcript of July 31, 2019 Telephonic Conference at 13?17.2 Accordingly, the Court adopts the New York Defendants? prOposal, Dkt. 22 at 4W6, as clarified and modi?ed during the July 31 conference.3 Is it therefore ORDERED: that the New York Defendants shall ?le their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and/or Improper Venue on or before August 9, 2019', that Mr. Trump shall ?le his Opposition to the New York Defendants? Motion to Dismiss on or before August 19, 2019; that the New York Defendants shall ?le their Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on or before August 23, 2019; and that a hearing on the Motion is set for August 29, 2019, at 2 PM in Courtroom 19; 2 The Committee, for its part, stated that it took no position on the New York Defendants? prOposal (which, in any event, does not bind it). Id. at 11. 3Among other things, the New York Defendants expressly preserved the personal jurisdiction and venue defenses that they have stated they intend to present in their Motion to Dismiss. Case Document 25 Filed 08/01/19 Page 4 of 4 It is further ORDERED that, during the pendency of the New York Defendants? Motion and for a period of one week from the Court?s decision on that Motion, the New York Defendants shall not deliver to the Committee any information concerning Mr. Trump that may be requested by Chairman Neal under the TRUST Act. It is further ORDERED that, during the pendency of the New York Defendants? Motion and for a period of one week from the Court?s decision on that Motion, should Chairman Neal make a request to the Commissioner under the TRUST Act for information concerning Mr. Trump, the New York Defendants shall notify the Court and Mr. Trump of that request. For the avoidance of any doubt, nothing in this Order limits the New York Defendants or Mr. Trump from making any arguments or filings concerning the New York Defendants? Motion to Dismiss, and nothing in this Order limits Mr. Trump?s ability to seek further or additional relief following the Court?s decision on the New York Defendants? Motion. It is so ORDERED. DATE: August 1, 2019 CARLJ . HOLS United es District Judge