With Donald Trump’s inauguration less than a month away, there’s been a lot of talk in Washington about two topics: first, the unprecedented conflicts of interest posed by the Trump presidency and, second, the individuals Trump is nominating to fill important government positions. But one thing there hasn’t been sufficient conversation about is the intersection of those two topics — the conflicts of interest posed by Trump naming the heads of agencies that are, or may be, investigating him and his businesses.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the many conflicts of interest posed by a Trump presidency. And rightly so. After all, these conflicts are a constitutional crisis in the making: unless Donald Trump sells his business interests before January 20 (and he’s thus far shown no willingness to do so), he will be in violation of the Constitution on the very day he takes the oath to uphold it.
There is much about the rise of President-elect Donald Trump that seems unprecedented in American politics and marked with uncertainty. But one aspect of Trump as a public official was foreseen and forewarned against since the very beginnings of our nation—the problem of his foreign entanglements and financial conflicts of interest.
A ruling striking down these districts would be an important victory not just for those challenging them, but also for our Constitution’s promise of equal political opportunity for all.
A key chapter in North Carolina’s long running attack on one of our Constitution’s most cherished principles—equal political opportunity for all regardless of race—comes to the Supreme Court next week. The pair of redistricting cases the Justices will hear (one from North Carolina, one from Virginia), which have gone largely unnoticed, will be an important test for the Roberts Court. In deciding these cases, it will be critical that the Court ensure that states respect the Constitution’s promise of equal opportunity for all, reflected in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and the Voting Rights Act.
With Donald Trump positioned to profit immeasurably from the presidency, the American people are getting a lesson in advanced constitutional law, learning about a clause of the Constitution that many lawyers have never even heard of: the Emoluments Clause.
As Americans head to the polls today, most people may be thinking about the election and nothing else. But they should also be paying attention to what’s happening at the Supreme Court, where the Justices will be hearing oral argument in Bank of America v. Miami and Wells Fargo v. Miami.
A case the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Monday isn’t getting a lot of attention, but it should be. And the two people who should be paying the most attention are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a single leader to respond promptly and decisively in protecting consumers from the types of abuses that caused the 2008 financial meltdown.
Tonight’s presidential debate will be the first time candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be asked at length about the Supreme Court on a stage together. This is surprising, given that the future of the Supreme Court is unquestionably at stake in this election.