JPMorgan Chase filed a motion on February 19, 2026, seeking to move Donald Trump’s $5 billion debanking lawsuit from Florida state court to federal court in Miami and ultimately to a New York venue. The motion argues that the lawsuit improperly named CEO Jamie Dimon as a defendant to keep the case in Florida, and that the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) does not apply to federally regulated bank executives acting in their official capacity.
JPMorgan’s legal team contends that Dimon was “fraudulently” joined to avoid federal jurisdiction. The bank cites FDUTPA’s exemption for federally regulated bank officers, stating that “the very statute Plaintiffs invoke expressly exempts federally regulated bank officers acting in their official capacities.” The motion further claims that “Plaintiffs have no possibility of success against JPMorgan’s CEO, and his inclusion in this suit cannot defeat federal jurisdiction, and this action properly belongs in federal court.”
Management reiterated the bank’s policy on account closures, saying, “Our company does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so.” The filing also notes that the lawsuit’s allegations of a “blacklist” of Trump and his businesses lack factual basis, and that the bank’s actions were driven by regulatory risk assessments rather than political motives.
Investors reacted to the lawsuit filing with a modest decline in market sentiment, but the reaction was tempered by JPMorgan’s clear defense strategy and the bank’s emphasis on regulatory compliance. The motion’s request to transfer the case to federal court reflects the bank’s preference for a venue that offers greater procedural predictability and a broader jurisdiction over federally regulated entities.
The lawsuit and JPMorgan’s counter‑motion carry significant reputational and legal implications. A favorable outcome could reinforce the bank’s stance that it does not engage in politically motivated account closures, while an adverse ruling could expose the bank to increased regulatory scrutiny and higher legal costs. Moreover, the case may set a precedent for how state consumer‑protection laws apply to federally regulated banks and their executives, potentially influencing future litigation in the banking sector.
The content on EveryTicker is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. We are not financial advisors. Consult with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions. Any actions you take based on information from this site are solely at your own risk.