Trump Sues JPMorgan & Judges Speak Out 

0:00So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM.

0:57by Cigna Healthcare. Everyone has been there. Your team's feedback is scattered across emails, chats, and sticky notes. It's a mess. But PDF Spaces and Adobe Acrobat gives you one collaborative workspace to streamline every file and comment. So, if you need six departments to finally agree on a proposal, do that with Acrobat. Need to turn a mountain of feedback into one plan of action? Do that with Acrobat. Want to stop searching for files and finally get everyone on the same page? Do that. Do that. Do that with Acrobat. Learn more at adobe.com slash do that with Acrobat. You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

1:48President Donald Trump has sued JPMorgan Chase and its chief executive officer, Jamie Dimon, for at least$5 billion over allegations that the lender stopped offering him and his businesses banking services for political reasons. The bank closed accounts for Trump and his businesses about seven weeks after the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. J.P. Morgan said in a statement that the suit has no merit and that they close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. Joining me is an expert on the intersection of business and politics, Riley Steele, a professor at Columbia Law School.

2:30Riley, this is a lawsuit over a practice known as debanking. What's your first reaction to the suit? I want to, first of all, say that this lawsuit is frivolous on multiple levels. And I think the real reason for filing the lawsuit, there are a few potential reasons, But one big one that stands out to me is they're trying to shift media coverage away from Trump's assault on the rule of law, like we're seeing in Minnesota right now, and back towards the narrative that he's the target of some grand persecution. Now, why do I think this lawsuit is frivolous? Well, two big categories of reasons. The first, there's this big threshold barrier before you even get to the merits of the lawsuit due to the length of time that Trump and the other plaintiffs took to file this lawsuit.

3:18The so-called debanking occurred in April 2021. They filed this lawsuit on January 22nd, 2026. That's a very long time, nearly five years. and there is in the deposit agreement that is attached to the complaint a two-year limitation period. So this is way longer than two years. So there's that initial kind of threshold barrier that they're unlikely to get around. And then it's also a dubious case on the merits. Is it dubious because of the facts or because of the law? Basically, there are sort of two core factual allegations in the complaint. The first is that J.P. Morgan wrongfully terminated the bank accounts of Trump and these affiliated organizations, I'll just call them Trump and co.

4:03for political reasons. The second is that they put him on this so-called blacklist that termed his reputation. What is the nature of that alleged political discrimination? Not entirely clear from the complaint. It's pretty bereft of specifics in terms of those factual allegations. But that's the crux of it. What is this so-called blacklist? Also kind of unclear from the factual allegations of the complaint, which again are pretty thin. But what I think it is, is some sort of compliance-related list that J.P. Morgan submitted to federal regulators that other federally regulated banks could have access to.

4:36So the theory and the complaint is that by putting him on this blacklist, that tarnished their reputation and made it so that it was tougher for them to get bank accounts at other banks with equivalent services offered, which caused them damages. So that's the basic sort of factual story that's being told here. And then they bring a few different counts based on those factual allegations. One count is sort of trade libel. The basic idea here is that by putting them on this so-called blacklist, that constituted some sort of false statement, which tarnished their reputations, caused them reputational harm.

5:13The second count is a unfair and deceptive trade practices act. And that's against Jamie Dimon. is a kind of mushy type of claim, and it's not entirely clear from the complaint what exactly the theory is, but it could be a sort of deception-type theory that kind of amounts to the same thing as that trade-level claim, the idea being that Jamie Dimon directed them to put them on this trade list, and that was a kind of deceptive trade act or practice. It's a kind of strange legal theory. And then the other sort of main substantive count is under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

5:45This is basically a contractual claim, the idea here, And this is based on the so-called debanking. The theory here is that J.P. Morgan acted in bad faith when they were terminating the bank account, which deprived Trump of the benefit of the bargain because they account terminated for political reasons. Each of these claims has some serious obstacles. Is it also unusual to sue the CEO of the bank in a case like this? Yeah, I think it's pretty unusual. It's pretty unusual. And there aren't any factual allegations to suggest any meaningful involvement of Jamie Dimon in all of this, other than he's sort of authorized at a high level.

6:22That's a pretty conclusory allegation. As far as the reputational harm, Trump became president after this. Does that play in anywhere here? So I guess the theory would be, okay, because I'm on this so-called blacklist, no other bank wants to do business with me. Well, not no other bank. I assume that they They found some bank that was willing to accept their money and they didn't just put it all under the mattress. But whatever bank they did find would not offer them equivalent services. What does that mean in practice? I don't know. The interest rate on their savings account is lower? That's a factual question.

6:54I don't know if that's true. They don't allege that in the complaint. Would it mean they have access to loans at worst terms? I don't know. The complaint doesn't allege that. So it's pretty vague about what exactly the nature of this damage is that they've incurred. And that could be a big obstacle for them. In addition to sort of whether there's any liability, like no harm, no foul, there's no damages. They don't have much of a case there. Yeah, I was wondering about damages because Donald Trump Jr. has said that because they couldn't get banking, that they went into crypto. And they've made a ton of money in crypto.

7:27So I'm wondering where the damages are. Yeah. If the so-called debanking prompts them to go to crypto and they've made tons and tons of money and much more than they would have made had they just kept their traditional banking arrangement in place, then it seems like this is a blessing in disguise and there's no damages to be had. Bloomberg Intelligence, one of our analysts, Elliot Stein, gives a 70 percent chance of the case being dismissed before trial. It's not higher. Well, first of all, you know, there's an arbitration clause in this agreement. So I assume that J.P. Morgan would seek to compel arbitration.

8:02I would say there's a higher than 70 % chance of the case being dismissed before trial. But maybe there's something I'm missing there. I'm not sure on the exact percentage, but it seems like a very weak case to me. I will say that much. So what do you see as the main hurdles for Trump in this lawsuit? I opened up by saying this limitations period is going to be a major hurdle for them. I don't really see a way around that unless there's something I'm missing there. The second thing being just generally the fitness of the factual allegations and complaints are a big problem. The idea that somehow or another this list constitutes a false statement because trade libel requires some sort of false statement of fact.

8:41And this seems more like a judgment call to me. J.P. Morgan had made a judgment call based on perhaps regulatory obligations, based on perhaps some sort of business decision about whether to A, terminate the count and B, put them on this list. And I don't see the false statement in any of that. So that's just going to be a big legal barrier based on the factual allegations that they currently appear in the complaint. I assume if there was more there, they would have put it in the complaint. So, you know, of course, they would potentially have a chance to, if it was dismissed, amend their complaints and add additional detail.

9:16But if the lawyers are any good, they would have put that in there in the first place, especially because I think a lot of this case is a messaging thing directed to the public rather than actually directed at obtaining legal relief for Trump. So from a sort of PR perspective, why wouldn't you just add more of that detail to the complaint and help you tell your story? I thought that about some of the lawsuits against, you know, ABC and Paramount and everything, but they settled those suits for significant amounts of money. Yeah, that thought crossed my mind as well. So I think about the CBS lawsuit, which CBS's parent company settled for, I believe,$16 million.

9:53And you could view that as a kind of protection money scheme. Settle this lawsuit and I will approve your merger, as they did, the Paramount merger. So that could be what's going on here. J.P. Morgan, there are all sorts of pressure points the government can exert on J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan is a highly regulated entity. So perhaps they're trying to extract some protection money here. The weakness of the complaint, I mean, people said the same thing about the CBS case, that I was also weak. But this is especially weak, especially due to the limitations issue, which is just a procedural issue could be easily disposed of on a motion to dismiss.

10:29So apparently the Justice Department has been investigating J.P. Morgan. How odd is it instead of having the Justice Department file charges to have the president of the United States file a private lawsuit? Totally, totally unusual. I can't think of any anyone else in president in my lifetime who's done this. So it's totally bizarre. Another weird thing about the complaint is he calls himself President Trump in the complaint. Even though this is a lawsuit he's bringing in his individual capacity as citizen Trump, he calls himself President Trump. which I think says something about the kind of erosion of the barriers between the president as the president, as an officer of the United States, and the sort of President Trump as an individual, sort of personalist brand of politics he's practicing.

11:20So you think that part of the motivation of this lawsuit is messaging? This is kind of just sending a message. Don't defy me or you're going to have trouble, which kind of could be a message not to just a J.P. Morgan, to all sorts of actors, executives, directors, corporate America, not to step out of line or you're going to have trouble. So I think this lawsuit is potentially accomplishing motives there. I don't really think that the money is the main one because he now has so much for it, especially after all his, you know, the money they've been making in crypto recently. But that money might be part of it too.

11:53We'll see if there's a motion to dismiss first or A motion for arbitration. Thanks so much, Riley. That's Professor Riley Steele of Columbia Law School. Last year, President Trump used executive orders and presidential memos to penalize law firms for representing clients or taking actions he opposed. Some of those law firms targeted by executive orders sued the administration, calling the orders unconstitutional. But the firm of Paul Weiss settled. In addition, eight other firms made preemptive deals to avoid being targeted by executive orders. As part of the settlements, the nine law firms agreed to provide a total of$940 million in pro bono work to efforts supported by the president and the firm.

12:44It wasn't a particularly good look for the legal profession. Now with rising threats to the rule of law, two retired judges have suggested a new initiative to publicly defend the independence and ethical obligations of lawyers. It's entitled, A Simple Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain Its Dignity. It was written by Shira Shineland, a former judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and John Jones III, the former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones joins me now. Judge Jones, how would you characterize the way the legal profession reacted last year to being targeted by President Trump?

13:29I think it was a mixed bag. The firms that dug in and fought won because I think the executive orders were clearly beyond the purview of the president. And in any event, they violated the firm's First Amendment rights. But there were other firms that felt, for a variety of reasons, compelled to bend and capitulate and make arrangements, typically citing the loss of clients, the determination that they didn't want to get at odds with the administration, and so forth. So it was truly mixed and divergent in terms of the reactions. Why have you and Judge Shineland written this op-ed? It was something that Judge Scheinland, I give her abundant credit, she thought of this and started the ball rolling in terms of forming the principles.

14:28I was very happy to sign on. We felt that it was within the clear mission of the Article III coalition that both of us are a part of, which, of course, is now over 60 former federal judges banding together, dating back to Reagan appointees. And as we said in the op-ed, as jurists who had a combined service of probably near five decades on the bench, we felt that it was important for us to speak up for the legal profession in a way that perhaps it would be difficult for individual firms to be the rallying points. It has to start somewhere, and we thought this was the proper way to do it. Tell us a little about the Sullivan Principles and what you're aiming for here.

15:24Well, the Sullivan Principles, of course, date back to the Reverend Leon Sullivan in Philadelphia and South Africa and corporations and so forth. But what we wanted to do was to state clearly that law firms should feel empowered to resist this type of overreach from the administration. Lawyers govern themselves and do so quite well through bar associations, through the disciplinary apparatus that exists in every state. But to find themselves in the penalty box because a particular president doesn't like who they've hired or doesn't like the clients that they've represented or the viewpoints that they've espoused or the pro bono work that they're doing flies in the face of the tradition of the legal profession, which is to provide legal services even in the face of potentially unpopular causes.

16:27and in particular, serving those who can't afford legal services free of being mandated to support certain causes, but to abandon others, again, by an executive order. So the principles are kind of a reaffirmation of what we believe has always been in the best tradition of the legal profession, which is to provide representation free of coercion or being sanctioned by some third party because of a particular cause or a viewpoint. Yeah, I was going to say it didn't seem like there was anything new in what you were suggesting. Are you just trying to give other lawyers courage to stick to the principles?

17:20I think that's precisely it. I think it's really, in a sense, a reaffirmation. There isn't anything new. It's not for us to add something to, I think, a system that historically has worked very well. We all know the story of John Adams representing the British soldiers in history, something that was hardly popular in Boston at that time. All of us who practice law, and I did for a lot of years before I took the bench, had occasion to represent clients who perhaps, you know, had causes that people would disagree with. But that's the nature of giving people access to the courts. It's essential to the rule of law.

18:07And it strikes at the heart of that when you have an administration that labels, for example, a law firm that is completely reputable as a rogue law firm that locks lawyers out of federal courthouses, that strips security clearances for lawyers just in a sort of fit of pique because they don't like what those lawyers do. you're doing. That's the type of behavior that an authoritarian regime exposes. Thanks so much, Judge Jones. It's always great to have you on the show. That's John Jones III, the former chief judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He's now the president of Dickinson College.

18:48This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card and the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Terms and more at AppleCard.com. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds and crypto.

19:24And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on Public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500.

20:00Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

20:21Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions slash repetitive tasks and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM.

21:02Retired federal judges Shira Shineland and Johnny Jones III have suggested a new initiative to reaffirm the foundational role of lawyers in our constitutional system. It's entitled A Simple Proposal for the Legal Profession to Regain Its Dignity. Joining me now to talk about their initiative is former Judge Jira Shineland. Judge Shineland, why do you think so many successful, top-tier law firms ended up caving to President Trump's demands and settling last year? Well, first of all, I haven't used the word cave ever, but I know there are those who do. I think they really felt that their sort of existence was threatened, even though, as you say, they're very successful firms, very large firms.

21:49But if somebody threatens them and says, you will not be able to enter a federal courthouse, we will eliminate your security clearances, we will not give government contracts to your clients. I mean, the clients will flee. They'll find other firms to do the work. And so I think these firms were seriously concerned as to the impact of this executive order on their bottom line, their financial existence. And they weren't willing to go to court, oppose the executive order as other firms did, which resulted in four very positive decisions. say that EOs, they're called EOs, second order, were unconstitutional.

22:36But I think the first firm to get these notices just said it'd be easier to work it out than to fight. And I know that the very first firm, Paul Weiss, Mr. Karp, went to the White House and negotiated a resolution that he thought would be something that he could live with. What I think he was surprised by is how the reaction to his decision was so negative that the legal profession was critical of his decision. But then, you know, a few more of the very big firms did the same thing. And I think it came to nine in the end. So even though there was an outcry after the first firm made a deal, several more did the same thing.

23:17So it seems as if the Trump administration, at least for now, has backed off on the threats to law firms. Yes and no. They're not sending out any new executive orders that I know of, but they are appealing to decisions of the four district courts, which have all held that those original executive orders were unconstitutional. So if they really wanted to back off, they wouldn't bother with the appeal. But they're continuing to fight and say, we had every right to send those executive orders and threaten those law firms and tell them what they could or couldn't do in their practice. So they are taking appeals.

23:56I wouldn't entirely say they backed off. Maybe they're just holding off to see how the appeals work out. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your Peace in the Times? The Peace and the Times is really just a way, so to speak, to publicize the principles for the independence of the legal profession that a number of former federal judges associated with Keep Our Republic have worked on very hard to make them straightforward, simple and clear. We want to have them widely adopted by law firms and law schools and individual lawyers and general counsels of corporations and nonprofits and eventually even government lawyers.

24:43So we're hoping that if hundreds and hopefully thousands of people adopt these principles and hundreds of law firms do and hundreds of law schools, that they're going to say to the legal profession, silence is not an option. You must buy these types of executive orders because they impinge on your independence. And how does that relate to courts? because courts can't rule on cases they don't have, right? They can only respond to cases brought to them by lawyers. So if lawyers aren't independent, then the courts aren't. So as a group of former judges, we know that it's lawyers that bring cases to court.

25:28It's lawyers who sue the government when they think the government is acting inappropriately. So we feel that there is a connection there that we as former judges do care very much about the independence of lawyers because lawyers bring cases to the court and then the courts rule and then law is made in our country. And Judge, what can you do about the public's seeming loss of confidence in the courts? I do think they have lost some confidence in the courts because primarily of the United States Supreme Court, meaning that the district courts have ruled against the government when they think it's appropriate.

26:11The appellate court has affirmed those opinions when they think it's appropriate. But then it goes to the Supreme Court on an emergency docket appeal, which we call the shadow docket, and then a stay is entered. And all of a sudden, the bad conduct can continue, maybe for a year, maybe for two years, so they actually hear the merit. So I think there's been a real loss of confidence at the top of the judiciary because of the extremely deferential attitude the Supreme Court has taken to the executive branch. You may have seen those statistics that if there's been, I don't know, 35 appeals to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration has won 80 to 90 percent of those emergency docket appeals, not a full hearing.

26:55So I think that's what's caused the loss of confidence in the judicial branch. As far as the attacks on judges, that's so wrong and so bad that I think the public doesn't like to hear about that, about judges being threatened physically and their families or judges being impeached for doing their job. So I think the public is supportive of the lower courts for sure and doesn't like to see them threatened like that. And what kind of response have you gotten to your outreach here? Oh, so so far we're having a wonderful response. And I think that was the point of the op ed. But I saw after we finished drafting the principles, which was way back in September, it took several months of them to be adopted by the Keep Our Republic Article III Coalition, which is a subset of Keep Our Republic.

27:45By the time that was adopted by the majority of the judges in the Article III Coalition, it was almost January. But I said, we need to write a quick op-ed and get it hopefully widely disseminated, which means the New York Times because it's sort of the premier paper of record. Let's see if we can get it published there, because I think then it's widely seen. And that's what happened. It was, of course, posted online last Monday, and it was in print on Friday. We've had a wonderful response. We now have over 600 lawyers who have signed on to the principles. And I think by the time we're done, it's going to be well over a thousand.