415 F.Supp.3d 98
D.D.C.2019Background
- New York enacted the TRUST Act on July 8, 2019, allowing the NY Commissioner of Taxation and Finance to produce state tax returns of the President (and other officials) to certain congressional committee chairs if statutory certifications are made.
- President Trump sued on July 23, 2019 seeking to block any production, alleging (1) a violation of Article I and House rules because any request would lack a legitimate legislative purpose, and (2) a First Amendment claim that the TRUST Act was enacted in retaliation for his speech.
- Defendants included NY Attorney General Letitia James and NY Commissioner Michael Schmidt (the “New York Defendants”) and the House Committee; Trump sought emergency relief under the All Writs Act to preserve the status quo.
- The Court allowed the New York Defendants to bring an expedited motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue and ordered them to withhold responding to any Committee request while the motion was pending (and for one week after ruling).
- The Court analyzed specific personal jurisdiction under the D.C. long-arm statute (D.C. Code § 13-423(a))—focusing on subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4)—and conspiracy- and discovery-based jurisdictional theories.
- Holding: Trump failed to meet his burden to establish personal jurisdiction over either New York Defendant; jurisdictional discovery was denied; the Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to the New York Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C. has specific jurisdiction under §13-423(a)(1) ("transacting business") | Trump: corresponding with Congress and transmitting returns constitutes "transacting business" in D.C. | NY Defs: No commercial/business activity directed at D.C.; neither participated in enacting the statute; correspondence with Congress is noncommercial/governmental. | (a)(1) not satisfied; sending records/correspondence is not a commercial/business activity for §13-423(a)(1). |
| Whether §13-423(a)(3) applies (tortious injury in D.C. by an act in D.C.) | Trump: if Commissioner delivers returns or testifies in D.C., injury would be caused by acts in D.C. | NY Defs: No such act has occurred or been committed in D.C.; any D.C. acts are speculative. | (a)(3) not satisfied on current record; speculation that Commissioner might act in D.C. is insufficient. |
| Whether §13-423(a)(4) applies (out-of-district act causing in-forum injury plus "plus factor") | Trump: production outside D.C. would cause injury in D.C.; Commissioner has past D.C. ties sufficient for the "persistent course of conduct" plus factor. | NY Defs: Commissioner lacks ongoing/persistent contacts in D.C.; past, remote employment is insufficient. | (a)(4) not satisfied; plaintiff did not plead the required persistent-course/plus-factor contacts. |
| Conspiracy-based jurisdiction and jurisdictional discovery | Trump: NY Defs are co-conspirators with Congressional Defendants; discovery will reveal contacts supporting jurisdiction. | NY Defs: No conspiracy pleaded; discovery is speculative/fishing expedition. | Conspiracy jurisdiction not established (conspiracy not pled with particularity); jurisdictional discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinguishes general vs. specific personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (paradigm forum for general jurisdiction is domicile)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (framework: D.C. long-arm statute then due process analysis)
- Forras v. Rauf, 812 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (interpretation of D.C. long-arm subsections and limits)
- Holder v. Haarmann & Reimer Corp., 779 A.2d 264 (D.C. 2001) (§13-423(a)(1) requires commercial/business-related activity)
- FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (conspiracy/jurisdictional theories and limits on pleading)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (suits for prospective relief against state officers)