Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump
The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution requires that all federal officials, including the President, seek and obtain the affirmative consent of Congress before accepting any benefits from foreign states. Our nation’s Founders concluded that this requirement was the only way to prevent undue foreign influence on American officials and to ensure that those officials act in the national interest, not their own financial self-interest. Because President Trump is accepting numerous financial benefits from foreign governments through his business empire without having first obtained the consent of Congress, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Representative Jerrold Nadler, and approximately 200 other Members of Congress asking the federal courts to compel the President to comply with the Constitution.
Trump’s failure to comply with the Constitution matters. The Founders included the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution because they recognized that payments and gifts to U.S. officials by foreign governments could compromise the judgment of those officials and undermine their loyalty to the United States, thereby harming the American people. But as long as Congress were required to approve such benefits in advance, the risk of foreign corruption would be reduced.
In September 2018, the United States District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to sue President Trump for violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The district court concluded that Trump’s alleged acceptance of foreign emoluments without congressional consent injures the plaintiffs in their capacities as legislators by denying them specific voting opportunities to which they are entitled by the Constitution—opportunities to cast binding votes either approving or rejecting specific foreign emoluments before the President accepts them. While President Trump argued that the case should be dismissed because Congress has political remedies available to stop him from accepting foreign emoluments, the district court disagreed, finding that these purported remedies are “clearly inadequate.”
In April 2019, the district court denied the remainder of the President’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded, among other things, that the President’s narrow definition of the term “emolument” was “unpersuasive and inconsistent,” and instead ruled that the text, structure, historical interpretation, and purpose of the Clause support a broad view of the term “emolument.” Accordingly, the court held that “the Amended complaint states a plausible clam against the President for violations of the Clause,” and that the plaintiffs’ case could therefore proceed.
The President then moved for permission to immediately appeal the district court’s orders and for a stay of discovery. In June 2019, the district court denied the President’s motion, ordering the discovery process to begin. Soon after, the plaintiffs issued subpoenas to numerous Trump-owned companies seeking records concerning their business dealings with foreign governments.
The next month, the President filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit denied the petition, ruling that the President “has not shown a clear and indisputable right to dismissal of the complaint in this case.” But the D.C. Circuit also remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the President’s motion for permission to immediately appeal and his motion for a stay. In August 2019, the district court granted both motions, and the D.C. Circuit subsequently accepted the appeal.
In February 2020, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the District Court’s September 2018 order on standing be reversed, the case be “remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint,” and the District Court’s April 30 opinion be vacated as moot.
Examples of Trump’s Unconstitutional Emoluments
President Trump has at no time sought or received the consent of Congress to accept any foreign emoluments, even though public reporting makes clear that he has already violated the Clause in at least three respects:
Foreign States Paying for Space in Trump-Owned Towers
- The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which is owned by China, leases space in Manhattan’s Trump Tower. The bank’s lease is estimated to be “worth close to $2 million annually.” [Washington Post, July 5, 2018]
- The governments of Afghanistan, India, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, and Thailand all pay for space in Manhattan’s Trump World Tower. During the first eight months of Trump’s presidency, more foreign governments sought permission to lease space in Trump World Tower than in the previous two years combined. [Reuters, May 2, 2019] [Mansion Global, May 4, 2018]
Foreign States Paying for Rooms and Events at Trump Hotels
- The Saudi Arabian government paid approximately $270,000 for rooms and expenses at Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., between November 2016 and February 2017. [Politico, Feb. 9, 2017] [Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2017]
- The Embassy of Kuwait held its National Day Celebration at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel in February 2017. The estimated price of the celebration was between $40,000 and $60,000. The next year, the embassy again paid for a celebration at the hotel. [Reuters, Feb. 27, 2017] [Washington Post, January 26, 2018]
- The Malaysian Prime Minister and dozens of members of his diplomatic delegation stayed at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel in September 2017, with the Prime Minister reportedly traveling from the hotel in a motorcade straight to the White House for a meeting with the President. [Washington Post, September 12, 2017]
Foreign States Giving Intellectual Property Rights to Trump Companies
- Since Trump became President, the Chinese government has approved 40 new trademarks to Trump and his companies. Circumstances suggest that these trademarks were approved or expedited as a result of Trump’s status as President of the United States; the director of a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, for instance, “said he had never seen so many applications approved so expeditiously,” and the approvals closely followed Trump’s abrupt decision to honor the one-China policy, in contrast to his earlier statements. [Associated Press, Mar. 9, 2017]
In addition to the emoluments that have been publicly reported, there are almost certainly many more that are not yet known about — that, in fact, it is impossible to know about absent judicial process to compel Trump to provide information about his businesses and the benefits he has received from foreign states.
June 14, 2017
CAC files complaint on behalf of roughly 200 members of Congress in federal district courtD.D.C. Original Complaint
August 15, 2017
CAC files amended complaintD.D.C. Amended Complaint
September 15, 2017
Government files motion to dismiss
September 19, 2017
Amicus brief is filed by Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project in support of the government
October 26, 2017
CAC files opposition to government’s motion to dismissD.D.C. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
November 2, 2017
Six amicus briefs are filed in support of CAC
November 21, 2017
Government files reply in support of motion to dismiss
March 30, 2018
District court orders supplemental briefing, instructing the parties to respond to arguments made by amici that had not yet been addressed
April 30, 2018
CAC files supplemental briefD.D.C. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum
April 30, 2018
Government files supplemental brief
June 7, 2018
District court hears oral argument
September 28, 2018
District Court rules in favor of congressional plaintiffs on standingD.D.C. Standing Opinion
October 22, 2018
Government requests an interlocutory appeal
November 2, 2018
CAC files a response to oppose the Government’s request for an interlocutory appealD.D.C. Opposition to Interlocutory Appeal
January 30, 2019
CAC files a notice of supplemental authorityD.D.C. Notice of Supplemental Authority
April 30, 2019
District Court denies President Trump’s motion to dismiss, in fullD.D.C. Opinion
May 21, 2019
CAC files an opposition to the government’s motion for a stay and a supplemental brief regarding the government’s motion for an interlocutory appealD.D.C. Opposition & Supplemental Br.
June 20, 2019
CAC files second amended complaintD.D.C. Second Amended Complaint
June 25, 2019
District Court denies President Trump’s motion for an immediate appeal and for a stay of proceedingsD.D.C. Mem. Op. and Order
July 9, 2019
Government files a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay in the D.C. Circuit
July 15, 2019
CAC files an opposition to the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and an opposition to the government’s motion for stay in the D.C. CircuitD.C. Cir. Resp. to Mandamus Pet. & Stay
July 19, 2019
The D.C. Circuit denied the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and stay and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the interlocutory appeal and stay
July 19, 2019
District Court stayed discovery and ordered supplemental briefing on the issues raised by the D.C. Circuit’s remand order
August 5, 2019
CAC files a supplemental brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion for interlocutory appeal and motion for a stay pending appealD.D.C. Suppl. Br.
August 21, 2019
The district court granted the government’s request for an interlocutory appeal and a stay
September 3, 2019
CAC files a response to the government’s petition for permission to appealD.C. Cir. Resp.
October 22, 2019
CAC files appellate brief for the plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit.D.C. Cir. Br.
October 29, 2019
Eight amicus briefs are filed in support of CAC
Brief on behalf of bipartisan former Members of Congress
Brief on behalf of standing, federal jurisdiction, and constitutional law scholars
Brief on behalf of former government ethics officers
Brief on behalf of separation of powers scholars
Brief on behalf of administrative law, constitutional law, and federal courts scholars
Brief on behalf of the Niskanen Center, Republican Women for Progress, Donald B. Ayer, Trevor Potter, Laurence Tribe, and J.W. Verret
Brief of behalf of legal historians
Brief on behalf of former national security officers
December 9, 2019
The D.C. Circuit hears oral arguments