March court filing highlights fight over where Trump's "political debanking" lawsuit should be heard

In March, President Donald Trump's lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase of politically motivated "debanking" shifted away from those underlying allegations and toward something entirely different, court documents obtained by CBS News reveal.

"Debanking" is when a financial institution abruptly closes a person or entity's account and refuses to do further business with them. The issue has become highly politicized after Donald Trump and affiliated entities filed a lawsuit last year in a Miami court alleging that Capital One closed over 300 business accounts associated with President Trump due to political bias. The company says it was actually due to concerns over money laundering.

This year, a lawsuit filed by Trump's lawyers alleging political discrimination by JPMorgan Chase following the Jan. 6th attacks have now moved toward a procedural fight over whether the case should be heard and, if so, whether one of Wall Street's most prominent executives remains personally named in litigation.

The March filing asks a federal judge to return the lawsuit to a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, arguing that the case never belonged in federal court.

Why this filing matters

This development isn't about whether "political debanking" occurred. 

Instead, Trump's attorneys argue JPMorgan improperly removed the case to federal court by claiming CEO Jamie Dimon was fraudulently added to defeat "diversity jurisdiction."

Diversity jurisdiction is a rule that allows federal courts to hear lawsuits that would normally be decided by local state courts. The ruling requires that parties involved in financial suits such as this must be from completely different states and very large sums of money must be involved. 

According to the filing, Florida law allows corporate officers to face liability when they personally participate in alleged deceptive conduct. Trump's attorneys argue that Dimon personally directed the decision to end banking relationships. 

JPMorgan's position

JPMorgan previously argued the claims against Dimon cannot proceed because federal banking law regulates national banks and their executives, making him exempt under Florida's consumer protection statute.

Trump's lawyers rejected that interpretation, saying Florida courts have never extended that exemption to bank executives solely because they work for regulated financial institutions.

The larger legal questions that remain

Although this filing focuses on jurisdiction rather than the merits of the lawsuit, legal experts will likely watch whether the courts accepts Trump's argument that corporate executives can be individually sued under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for allegedly participating in politically motivated banking decisions.

A ruling either way could influence how future "political debanking" lawsuits are litigated, particularly as the issue becomes a cause for conservative politicians to take up with financial institutions who maintain their contractual right to close accounts with broad discretion.

Florida officials challenge "political debanking"

Gov. Ron DeSantis has taken action against what he calls ideological discrimination in banking, signing legislation to prevent major banks from denying services based on customers' political or religious beliefs. 

Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis has amplified these efforts, publicly accusing federal agencies of pushing banks to target conservative voices, gun owners, and political supporters. Together, these officials have positioned Florida at the forefront of resistance to perceived financial censorship.

Similarly, Georgia pushes back on debanking practices

Georgia leaders have taken a proactive stance against financial discrimination. State Sen. Blake Tillery has vocally opposed debanking, championing protections for both everyday citizens and high-profile individuals. 

At the same time, Georgia lawmakers have introduced legislation targeting banks that use social credit metrics or restrict access based on constitutional expression, aiming to hold financial institutions accountable for ideological bias.

What's next

The federal judge must first decide whether the lawsuit should remain in federal court or return to state court before addressing Trump's allegations of political debanking.

Meanwhile, President Trump's attorneys argue JPMorgan has not met the high legal standard required to keep the case in federal court because of disputed factual questions surrounding the case and unresolved issues of Florida law remain.