Adam KlasfeldVerified account

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.

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.

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.”