Capital One dismissal bid puts Trump's JPMorgan Chase "political debanking" lawsuit in sharper focus

A new filing in Trump's Capital One case highlights the legal hurdle facing a separate $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase: proving political discrimination when bank agreements grant broad authority to close accounts.

The filing in President Donald Trump's lawsuit is bringing renewed attention to a separate case against JPMorgan Chase, sharpening the question of whether "political debanking" can be proved in court.

Capital One asked a federal judge in Miami to dismiss with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Trump's trust and affiliated businesses, which accuse the bank of closing more than 300 accounts because of political bias following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The bank denies that allegation. In its July 31 motion, Capital One said the closures followed reviews by its anti-money-laundering department and argued its account rules allowed it to terminate the relationships for any reason and without notice.

The filing comes after the judge dismissed an earlier version of the complaint in March, permitting limited discovery and giving Trump's businesses another opportunity to state their claims. Capital One now argues the amended lawsuit still fails to present a legally viable case. 

The judge has not ruled on the latest request. 

That unfolding case could provide an early indication of how courts approach Trump's wider campaign against alleged political discrimination by major financial institutions.

In a separate lawsuit, Trump and several of his businesses are seeking at least $5 billion from JPMorgan Chase and its CEO, Jamie Dimon. That complaint alleges Chase terminated longstanding banking relationships because of Trump's conservative political views and placed Trump-affiliated names on a blacklist available to other banks.

JPMorgan has denied wrongdoing and called the lawsuit meritless. The bank says it does not close accounts for political or religious reasons but may end relationships that create legal or regulatory risk. 

Capital One case exposes a central legal hurdle

The latest Capital One filing does not impact the JPMorgan case. The lawsuits involve separate banks, account agreements and factual allegations.

But the cases share a central conflict.

Trump's businesses argue that banks improperly used their discretion to terminate accounts for political reasons. The banks maintain that their contracts give them broad authority to end customer relationships and that decisions may be driven by regulatory and risk-management obligations.

Capital One's motion says its account rules permitted either party to end the banking relationship in its "absolute discretion." According to the filing, the judge previously found that restricting the bank's authority based on an allegedly improper motive would alter the contract's expressed terms.

The bank also says documents obtained during discovery show that anti-money-laundering concerns, not political ideology, prompted its reviews. Those assertions remain Capital One's account of the dispute, and Trump's businesses have alleged the concerns were a pretext for discrimination. 

A similar contractual issue sits at the center of Trump's JPMorgan complaint.

The Chase deposit agreement attached to the lawsuit says the bank may close an account "at any time for any reason or no reason without prior notice." Trump's lawyers acknowledged the language but argue they did not authorize Chase to terminate an account for an unlawful purpose.

According to Trump's complaint, Chase exercised its contractual authority in bad faith by allegedly terminating his accounts because of Trump's politics. Trump's businesses are asking the court to find that the closures violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

The Capital One proceedings demonstrate how difficult that argument may be when a banking contract expressly provides broad termination rights. Still, the ruling in that case would not automatically control the JPMorgan dispute, which includes additional claims and allegations.

The Capital One proceedings demonstrate how difficult that argument may be when a banking contract expressly provides broad termination rights. Still, the ruling in that case would not automatically control the JPMorgan dispute, which includes additional claims and allegations.

What the JPMorgan lawsuit alleges

Trump's complaint says he and his affiliated businesses maintained hundreds of accounts with JPMorgan Chase over several decades and transacted hundreds of millions of dollars through the institution.

According to the lawsuit, Chase notified the businesses on Feb. 19, 2021, that several accounts would be closed by April 19. The complaint says Chase provided no explanation and gave the plaintiffs about 60 days to move their money, notify business partners and establish relationships with other banks.

"Plaintiffs are confident that JPMC's unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations," the complaint states.

That wording expresses the plaintiffs' conclusion but is not direct evidence from Chase acknowledging a political motive.

The lawsuit also alleges Trump raised the closures directly with Dimon, who said he would review the matter but did not provide a later response. Chase's decision allegedly caused financial disruption and reputational damage by requiring the businesses to tell other institutions that their previous bank had terminated the relationships. 

The alleged blacklist raises a separate question

The JPMorgan lawsuit goes beyond the account closures.

Trump's attorneys allege Chase, under Dimon's direction, published the names of Trump, members of his family and affiliated companies on a blacklist associated with wealth-management accounts.

The complaint claims the list was accessible to federally regulated banks and could lead other institutions to believe the plaintiffs had engaged in financial misconduct or were otherwise unsuitable customers.

Trump's businesses accuse Chase of trade libel and allege the purported list caused them to be denied banking services or offered fewer and less advantageous options.

But the complaint does not attach the alleged blacklist, identify precisely who maintains it or include a communication confirming Chase placed the plaintiffs on it. The lawsuit says the plaintiffs only recently learned of its existence.

Evidence supporting  or undermining the central allegations could emerge through discovery. At the complaint stage, however, it remains an unproven claim from the plaintiffs. 

Is political debanking legitimate?

Taken together, the lawsuits show that political debanking is a legitimate subject for regulatory, legislative and judicial scrutiny. They do not establish that either bank discriminated against Trump.

The JPMorgan complaint points to Florida legislation, letters from state attorneys general, congressional debate and federal regulatory activity as evidence that viewpoint-based banking discrimination is a recognized public-policy concern.

The difficult legal question is not simply whether political debanking can happen. It is whether Trump's businesses can present enough evidence to show that politics rather than contractual authority, regulatory obligations or financial risk caused these particular banks to close their accounts.

Capital One's latest filing places that distinction at the center of the news cycle. The bank says the dispute concerns a contract and an anti-money-laundering review. Trump's businesses say those explanations obscure political discrimination.

The Chase case presents the same fundamental divide, but with an added allegation that JPMorgan shared damaging information throughout the banking system.

For now, political debanking has legitimacy as an issue. Whether Trump's claims against either institution have legal merit remains unsettled  and will ultimately depend on the national political debate than on what the evidence shows about why the accounts were actually closed.

Georgia law offers narrower protections against debanking

Georgia also has a law addressing discrimination in the financial-services industry, though its protections are limited to lawful firearms and ammunition businesses.

A spokesperson for Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr's office pointed to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-439.2, which makes it unlawful to refuse, discontinue or terminate financial services solely because a person or trade association is lawfully involved in the firearms or ammunition industry.

"Georgia does have a statute related to debanking and the firearms industry," the spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News Atlanta.

The law also restricts certain uses of merchant-category codes to distinguish firearms retailers from general merchandise or sporting-goods stores. It does not create a broad prohibition against banks closing accounts because of a customer's political views or affiliations. 

That distinction illustrates the uneven legal landscape surrounding debanking. 

Florida law cited in Trump's complaint expressly addresses discrimination based on political opinions, speech or affiliations. Georgia's statute, by comparison, applies to a particular lawful industry that state lawmakers sought to protect from financial discrimination.

The Florida Attorney General's Office did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.