Jeffrey Lovitky v. Donald Trump
949 F.3d 753
| D.C. Cir. | 2020Background
- The Ethics in Government Act and implementing OGE regulations require certain officials, including the President, to file annual public financial-disclosure reports identifying liabilities over $10,000 using OGE Form 278e.
- OGE publishes nonbinding guidance (2016 and 2018 Public Financial Disclosure Guides) about reporting business liabilities; the 2016 Guide counseled some business liabilities may be reportable, while the 2018 Guide instructed that business liabilities need not be reported unless the filer is personally liable.
- Jeffrey Lovitky alleged President Trump’s May 2018 and May 2019 disclosures “overdisclosed” by listing liabilities of entities Trump controls (e.g., LLC mortgages) and thereby commingled non‑personal debts with personal debts, obscuring the President’s personal liabilities.
- Lovitky claimed this obscuration deprived him of information needed to evaluate the President and to make informed voting decisions, and sought mandamus/injunctive relief directing amended disclosures plus a declaratory judgment.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, concluding it could not grant mandamus or equitable relief against a sitting President and that mandamus jurisdiction’s elements were not satisfied.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding Lovitky failed to show a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief because the Ethics Act, regulations, and guidance do not create a clear duty to differentiate personal from non‑personal liabilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus jurisdiction exists to compel the President to identify and separate personal liabilities from business/entity liabilities on disclosure forms | Lovitky: Ethics Act and regs require disclosure of the filer’s personal liabilities and thus a clear duty to differentiate; mandamus appropriate | Trump: Statute and regs do not require differentiation; no clear ministerial duty; mandamus unavailable | No. Court found no clear and indisputable right or duty to support mandamus; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether OGE regulations and Form 278e instructions create a binding duty to report only the filer’s personal liabilities or to label personal vs non‑personal debts | Lovitky: Regs and instructions use “filer” and compel reporting of filer liabilities, supporting his interpretation | Trump: Regulations are ambiguous and permit or do not forbid over‑disclosure; guidance is nonbinding | Regs and form instructions are not sufficiently clear to create a mandamus‑grade duty; guidance nonbinding |
| Whether OGE Public Financial Disclosure Guides impose a legal duty to identify personal liabilities | Lovitky: Guides support his view that non‑personal debts should not be commingled and that identification is required | Trump: Guides are training materials, nonbinding, and differ across years; cannot create a clear legal duty | Guides are nonbinding and cannot convert statutory/regulatory ambiguity into a clear duty for mandamus |
| Whether the statute’s requirement of a “full and complete statement” and the certification/face‑value review standard require differentiation of personal vs non‑personal liabilities | Lovitky: “Full and complete” meaningfully requires identifying personal liabilities when commingled | Trump: Phrase is ambiguous and consistent with cautious over‑disclosure; certification/face‑value review do not compel separation | The phrase does not create a clear, peremptory command to label or separate liabilities; statute ambiguous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Oakar, 111 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (describing purposes of the Ethics in Government Act)
- In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (mandamus jurisdiction merges with merits; mandamus standards explained)
- Walpin v. Corp. for Nat'l & Cmty. Servs., 630 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (elements for mandamus relief summarized)
- Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to show clear and indisputable right to mandamus)
- Lovitky v. Trump, 918 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (prior appeal addressing mandamus jurisdiction where Trump was a candidate)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (court must confirm Article III jurisdiction before reaching merits)