Talk:Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Please create Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank articles

The DC Circuit ruled on Mazars in October. The 2nd Circuit ruled on Deutsche Bank/Capital One today. Please create articles for these cases. Thanks. Kart2401real (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mazars and Deutsche Bank/Capital One were consolidated

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, AG were consolidated. Please update this page to reflect this. Kart2401real (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note; Per Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG&diff=931554907&oldid=931467785 by Special:Contributions/Kart2401real 19:56, 18 December 2019: removed REDIRECT from "Deutsche Bank, AG" to Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. X1\ (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Two cents: the articles for these two cases should probably be merged since the case is consolidated. The court will probably issue a single opinion in both cases and that opinion is what will be notable for posterity. LegalSkeptic (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Legalskeptic: see here. X1\ (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

See also Timeline(s)

• Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

X1\ (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Request received to merge articles: Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG into Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP; dated: January/2021. Proposer's Rationale: The lower court cases were consolidated into one Supreme Court case with a single opinion, and that is what will be remembered for posterity. We can simply combine the backgrounds of each case into one Background section (since each bank had a different background with their case). The source page is empty, outdated, and lacking in info, and users have noted that on both articles and talk pages and said they should be joined together. One example of this is Colorado Department of State v. Baca which is merged into Chiafalo v. Washington since they are both consolidated for one opinion, and thus have the same article. Discuss here. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support on the principle this should about the case, its holding, and legal ramifications with enough background and post-case impact to put it in context. That v Deutsche Bank was merged in and ruled simultaneously is part of that. --Masem (t) 04:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support: There are some examples of consolidated Supreme Court cases having separate articles (e.g. Bostock v. Clayton County/Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda/R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) but I believe that should be the exception and merger should be the general rule in this situation. In the Bostock example, you have a landmark opinion, plus a substantial amount of detail in the individual case articles that might get lost in a merger. In this instance, there are two start-class articles that could be merged to create one good article. LegalSkeptic (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment LegalSkeptic I agree with your statement. There indeed are some examples of consolidated Supreme Court cases that have their own articles, but this one should be an exception. In the Bostock case you elaborated on, each one was different in their legal background to merit their own article (as each of the three cases was a consolidation of other cases in lower courts, each pertaining to victims with unique backgrounds, either relating to gay or transgender). In this case, both Trump cases are related to Trump blocking congressional subpoenas for his financial documents, albeit from different banks. We can simply merge them into one article, and then for the headings "Background" and "lower courts" we can have two subheadings for each bank's case, before being consolidated for one Supreme Court opinion. Each article alone is lacking, but together they would create a good article. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing the Impact and aftermath section

The article could use some update on the later court decisions, leading up to the Supreme Court ultimately allowing the House committee to obtain the tax returns, and how the committee voted to make them public. 2603:8000:B600:4000:898A:C2AB:A8F6:E275 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: this case is about the House Oversight committee, which later settled a suit with Trump in September 2022. The tax returns sent by the Treasury department were to the House Ways and Means committee. 2603:8000:B600:4000:2104:AE42:A6F8:5194 (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)