Good morning from New York.

The other congressional subpoena fight comes to a head in federal court this afternoon for oral arguments in Trump v. Deutsche.

I’ll be covering those proceedings live here at 2:30 pm EST today for @CourthouseNews.

Watch this thread.

Presiding over today's hearing will be U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, who just finished presiding over an NCAA corruption trial. Another fun fact: Ramos presided over a matter involving Trump's Panama hotel fka Trump Ocean Club. via @JRuss_JRuss courthousenews.com/investors-in-t…

Don't be surprised if the Times expose on Deutsche Bank staff's money laundering concerns about Trump comes up today: House Committees wrote in briefs that the probe looks into this.

ICYMI: nytimes.com/2019/05/19/bus…

(Note: The tweet above deleted and revised to correct a typo.)

This is where counsel for House Committees refer to money laundering concerns.

In case you missed my coverage of their letter earlier this month: courthousenews.com/house-democrat…

Back to the Deutsche/Capital One subpoenas hearing: The courtroom pews are filling up with reporters and spectators. The attorneys are milling about the plaintiff, defendant and intervenors tables.

Five minutes to start time.

Some background: House Dems have chipped away at Trump's efforts to keep his finances secret all week.

On Tuesday, a DC judge upheld the subpoenas of Trump's accounting firm Mazars, & @NYSA_Majority just today passed legislation facilitating sharing of state taxes w/ Congress.

The House's general counsel informed Judge Ramos of that D.C. ruling shortly after it landed.

That's on top of the steady beat of NYT scoops on Trump and Deutsche, starting with the expose at the beginning of the week (cited earlier in the thread).

"All rise."

The proceedings are beginning. Marc Mukasey introduces himself for the Trump family's business entities.

Mukasey introduces William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge for Trump family.

The House's general counsel Douglas Letter introduces himself.

Judge Ramos notes this is a hearing on Trump et al's preliminary injunction applicaton.

Strawbridge up first.

Strawbridge emphasizes that Congress's powers are extensive but "not unlimited."

"A Committee cannot exceed the scope of its jurisdiction," Strawbridge says, slamming the subpoenas' "startling breadth."

"If Congress can make a case study out of the plaintiffs, they can make a case study out of" himself, his colleagues or even the judge, Strawbridge says.

Skeptical, Ramos interrupts him, splashing cold water on "case study" language.

Pressing on, Strawbridge calls the money laundering aspects of the investigation "law enforcement activity," rather than legislative action.

Ramos: "Certainly those requests touch upon matters... that are generally in the ambit of law enforcement."

But Ramos presses him on whether Congress also has the responsibility to look into whether existing laws sufficient, for example, in money laundering.

Strawbridge: "I think this is important to emphasize that this isn't a subpoena for government activity." It's for private financial records, he says.

Ramos: "Hasn't the Supreme Court said again & again & again" that Congressional inquiries into compliance with laws permitted?

Ramos: You also complain about the vast breadth of the subpoenas.

"Does the way the Trump Org is structured require... that it reaches the family members because of the closely held structure" of the organization?" he asks.

Strawbridge answers in the negative.

"They're literally looking for information about minors," he says. "They're looking for information about in-laws."

Ramos asks whether Strawbridge asked the Committees whether they would be open to narrow the scope.

Strawbridge said he would "be happy to do so" if the court so ordered.

"Okay," Ramos replies.

Strawbridge pivots to another challenge under the RFPA, the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

Ramos asks whether Congress already defined itself out of the RFPA.

A screenshot from an exception of the statute.

RFPA text here: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12…

Ramos asks for the balance of equities on the proposed preliminary injunction.

Strawbridge asserts that they tilt in the plaintiff's favor because the case can be resolved by the fall.

Ramos notes that Judge Mehta gave them an opportunity to supplement the record and asks what discovery in the case would entail.

Strawbridge said that he would add Congress members' statements into the record and information on the history of the RFPA.

Ramos: Why isn't that a purely legal question?

The judge is probing why they want to develop the record on that issue.

Strawbridge ends by invoking the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), from Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist witch-hunt, as an investigation run amok.

Note: Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn, was McCarthy's henchman.

House's general counsel Douglas Letter is now up, pivoting immediately to Judge Mehta's ruling emphatically rejecting Strawbridge's arguments.

Ramos asks whether it was appropriate for Congress to focus on an individual and label Trump, his family and his entities a "case study."

Letter notes that the Deutsche subpoena is broader than Trump et al.

"Trump is saying here, 'This is focusing on me.' It's not."

Letter emphasizes that this is not an investigation just about Trump and his family.

"We're talking about money laundering. We're talking about using foreign entities," including Russian oligarchs, over a sustained period of times," Letter added.

Letter notes that Deutsche Bank has had to pay heavy fines because of money laundering.

"Why were you lending money to Mr. Trump when numerous other banks wouldn't touch him?" Letter says, referring to Deutsche and why the House is interested in it.

Letter: Remember, if money is flowing in from Russian oligarchs... you have to look at, "Where is it going here?"

He refers to a project in Chicago.

On that fateful Chicago case, per NYT nytimes.com/2019/03/18/bus…

Ramos asks why this isn't a criminal law enforcement investigation.

Letter notes that the House of Representatives doesn't have the power to jail anyone, and quips that it's not "in collusion with the Trump-led Department of Justice."

Also, Letter notes, Watergate investigated *criminal activity*, and yet it wasn't a law enforcement investigation.

If Congress has such broad powers, Ramos asks: "What am I doing here?"

Letter responds that Trump et al brought the case.

"There is a key separation of powers he and Mr. Strawbridge knows this very well," he continues

Ramos asks whether he can find there is a facially legitimate purpose to the subpoenas, and that's it.

Letter says yes.

Referring to Congress, Letter says: "We are a check on the president."

"He clearly views us as some sort of nuisance," he adds, referring to Trump. "[The suit] shows a very serious misunderstanding on how the law has developed since the beginning of our country."

On Trump's complaint about inquiry into his family, Letter notes financial crime often involves "dummy corporations.

"They put their relatives in charge," Letter says, adding later. "This is what people committing financial fraud do."

Letter notes: "Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of President Trump."

Ramos adds he's also part of Trump's administration.

Ramos asks whether there was an agreement that Congress would maintain the confidentiality of the documents.

Letter says that they have not had that discussion yet on that issue.

"If your Honor decides that we are right on the law based on massive amounts of Supreme Court precedent," Letter says that he should not issue an injunction based on lack of likely success on the merits.

"Again, there is no case here on the merits," Letter says.

"There's massive public interest in disclosure here," Letter notes. "Remember Congress has a limited time."

Ramos asks how long it has.

Letter says the House has two-year terms, and that Trump will likely drag out appeals.

Letter waves away the idea that Congress intended to cut off its own ability to conduct investigations - and open itself up to punitive damages - by creating the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which exempts themselves.

If discovery were to proceed, Letter notes, it would trample over the Constitution's speech or debate clause, which protects the Legislative branch from executive action.

"There's no discovery here," he says.

He calls the investigation "extremely important."

"We want to find out is our govt at its highest levels being subject to influence from foreign govts that the American people don't know about?"

He asks whether Trump and Kushner are beholden to foreign entities and leaders because of financial interests they won't disclose.

"We're way overdue in knowing that," Letter concludes, before stepping down.

Deutsche and Capital One decline Ramos' invitation to chime in on the matter.

"You came all the down here," the judge quipped.

Strawbridge back up.

"What we just heard from Mr. Letter up hear was a lot about Russian oligarch and failure to disclose..." and other matters that Strawbridge claims is out of bounds for Congress, Strawbridge says.

Strawbridge disputes the House's position that these subpoenas extend far more broadly than the Trump family and entities. He insists that its targeting Trump specifically.

Strawbridge: "There are limitations on Congress's power. Those limitations have been overstepped here."

Letter steps back up: "I don't think I ever heard that his client said, you can have all of the records, but instead of six years, we can limit it to four."

Ramos said that he's going to rule after a brief 10 minute recess.

We're back on: Ramos is going to read a 25-page opinion estimating it will take him roughly 45 minutes to read it.

BREAKING: Ramos WON'T preliminarily enjoin the subpoenas.

"The court concludes that a preliminary injunction is inappropriate," Ramos says.

Turning to the issue of irreparable harm, Ramos said that Trump et al clear the hurdle on that prong because once turned over, you can't "unring the bell."

Ramos: The committees have not committed one way or another to keep the records confidential once they are received.

Ramos: The Committees have provided sound evidence as to why the RFPA (Right to Financial Privacy Act) does not apply to Congress.

Context for those unfamiliar with judicial rulings:

Ramos is describing the various grounds for challenge. The argument that Trump, his family and his business entities would face irreparable harm persuaded him, the notion that it violated the RFPA did not. Devil in the details.

Ramos: Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claims.

Ramos read this citation: "Without the power to investigate... Congress could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional function wisely and effectively." law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/t…

My developing story is now up @CourthouseNews . Much more to come soon and Ramos' recitation is still ongoing: courthousenews.com/subpoenas-targ…

Now back to the ruling.

Ramos: The Committees' subpoenas serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

In citing that legit purpose, Ramos notes that the House said it's investigating more than $2 billion in loans to President Trump and business-wide compliance with money laundering laws.

Ramos also notes that the intelligence and counterintel investigations are looking into foreign money and interests in Trump's sprawling business empire. (This is a summary: Ramos is reciting this at a brisk clip.)

Oversight and transparency are not "in a vacuum" legitimate enough congressional purposes justifying scrutinizing an individual here.

Here, Committees are investigating issues where legislation could be had. (My analysis, e.g. tightening money laundering laws.)

Ramos: "These subpoenas are all in service of facially legitimate investigative purposes."

Ramos: "As noted by Judge Mehta," ruling in D.C. earlier this week, the Supreme Court's standard is "a forgiving one."

Ramos: The court will not engage in a line-by-line review of the subpoenas' requests.

That's not the Supreme Court's standard, he noted.

Ramos says that the "power to investigate should not be confused with the powers of law enforcement."

Ramos rejects the notion that these subpoenas are about "exposure for the sake of exposure."

Agreeing the Committees, Ramos find that the court does not have the authority to testing the motives of committee members.

"Such is not our function," Ramos said.

Ramos: "At bottom," the Committee's ability to serve and enforce the subpoenas is "well-settled."

Ramos notes that a congressional subpoena of a sitting president is "serious" as colloquially understood, but it does not necessarily present a "serious" legal question.

"The court concludes that the plaintiffs have not raised any serious questions" moving forward, he says.

Ramos: "Even if the questions were sufficiently serious, injunctive relief would be unwarranted."

Ramos notes that the plaintiffs will likely appeal and ask for a stay of his ruling, which he concludes.

Strawbridge immediately asks for a stay of his ruling.

"That request is denied," Ramos said.

Ramos says he'll put that opinion on the docket "as soon as is practical."

Adjourned! Look out for updates soon @CourthouseNews.

No written ruling available yet, but we do have this.

Reuters reports that Deutsche said they will comply. I'm reaching out to the bank for comment.

https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/1131299053587914759

Deutsche statement in full:

“We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations and will abide by a court order regarding such investigations.”

Capital One has not yet responded to an email requesting comment.

ICYMI, earlier today: Another dam fell in Trump's efforts to keep his finances secret. The NY State Assembly authorized sharing state tax records--including Trump's--with Congress members. courthousenews.com/new-york-opens…

Final update on today’s Trump v. Deutsche hearing, @CourthouseNews.

Upshot: This is the second wholesale repudiation of Trump’s federal court subpoena challenges in a single week, by two separate judges. courthousenews.com/subpoenas-targ…

Thanks for following along this feed today, and be sure to watch @TheLastWord with @Lawrence tonight, starting at 10 p.m. EST.