The motion by a one-time senior adviser to President Trump — his daughter, Ivanka — to challenge a subpoena issued by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, suggests that the Trumps are closing ranks against efforts to dismantle their family business.  

Ms. Trump, who was named in Ms. James’s initial indictment, has already slipped through the clutches of prosecutors once in this civil fraud case, which accuses Mr. Trump, his family, and their business of fraudulently inflating the value of their assets to obtain better terms from lenders. An appeals court ruled in June that the claims against Ms. Trump were barred by statutes of limitation.

The former president’s daughter served as the Trump Organization’s executive vice president for development and acquisitions before she departed to advise Mr. Trump at the White House in 2017. Ms. James has acknowledged that Ms. Trump “engaged in conduct that fell altogether outside of the applicable limitations period.”  

While Ms. Trump may no longer be liable for fraud — her brothers Donald Jr. and Eric are still on the hook — Ms. James continues to seek her testimony. The presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, has already found Mr. Trump committed “persistent” fraud, and the trial to which Ms. James seeks to summon Ms. Trump is devoted to tallying the extent of the damages he will be forced to pay. 

Now, though, Ms. Trump, in a memorandum filed to Judge Engoron, accuses the attorney general of “effectively trying to force her back into this case from which she was dismissed,” and by a unanimous appellate ruling at that. Now, Ms. Trump argues that the issuing of subpoenas to “three corporate entities” — and not Ms. Trump in her personal capacity — is “an end run around” the failure of prosecutors to previously depose her. 

Ms. Trump, whose husband, Jared Kushner, also served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump, argues that her subpoena was “not properly served” and that Ms. James is using Ms. Trump’s business entities as proxies to compel her testimony. Ms. Trump notes that she is a “non-party” to the case “who does not reside and has not resided in New York for almost seven years.” 

Ms. Trump and her family never returned to New York after the end of the Trump administration, joining the greater Trump family’s exodus to Florida. She and Mr. Kushner bought a lot on Miami’s Indian Creek Island for about $32 million and are building a family estate, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Rules around how to serve a subpoena stem from the judicial consensus that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits courts from exercising jurisdiction over a defendant — unless the defendant has proper notice. The Sixth Amendment also ordains that the “accused shall enjoy the right” to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”

Citing the New York State law that governs the fraud case, Ms. Trump writes that “there are distinct and separate requirements for personal service upon a corporation and personal service upon a natural person.” Ms. James, she alleges, elided that distinction by sending her summons to three corporate entities affiliated with Ms. Trump. 

Ms. Trump maintains that a subpoena addressed to these businesses — TTT, OPO, and 502 Park — is not sufficient to reach her personally and does not compel Ms. Trump to appear in Judge Engoron’s Lower Manhattan courtroom “in her individual capacity.” 

Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner have both indicated that they will not be directly involved in Mr. Trump’s current presidential run, and Ms. Trump’s desire to keep her distance appears to be reflected in her suggestion here that her attorneys have “already communicated” to Ms. James that “Defendant Eric Trump” can testify on her behalf.