Rule of Law

Appeals court declines to dismiss Trump emoluments case

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., declined to dismiss an emoluments lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Friday, hours before a lower court judge halted congressional Democrats’ attempts to subpoena records in the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the Department of Justice’s attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed, saying the Trump administration didn’t lay out a “clear and indisputable right to dismissal of the complaint.”

Some 200 congressional Democrats sued Trump last year, accusing him of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments and earning profits from Trump International Hotel.

The Justice Department asked for the dismissal, saying the Democrats’ lawsuit relies “on a host of novel and flawed constitutional premises” that require “intrusive” probing into Trump’s personal finances. The subpoenas would like cause “irreparable injury,” the administration said.

Later Friday, District Judge Emmet Sullivan put a temporary halt on Democrats’ subpoenas of the Trump Organization’s financial records. He did so because the appeals court said it would hear the case prior to the collection of the documents.

The Democrats issued 37 subpoenas earlier this month seeking information from Trump’s businesses, including the Trump Organization, Trump Tower, his hotels in New York and Washington, D.C., and his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.

The subpoenas, issued by the Constitutional Accountability Center, which is representing the group of Democrats including Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and House judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., demanded evidence about Trump’s financial records by July 29.

This isn’t the only emoluments case that’s been brought against Trump. On July 10, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a separate lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland. The panel said they couldn’t show that Trump’s ownership of the hotels created competition with other similar businesses like convention centers.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Cristosal Human Rights v. Marocco

In Cristosal Human Rights v. Marocco, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to defund and dismantle the Inter-American Foundation violates federal law and...
Rule of Law
March 18, 2025

Feds, NLRB’s Wilcox urge quick ruling on reinstatement

HR Dive
The defendants said a district court’s ruling “works a grave harm to the separation of...
Rule of Law
March 18, 2025

RELEASE: At Oral Argument, D.C. Circuit Judges Contend with Dangerous and Unprecedented Claims for Unlimited Executive Power over Longstanding Independent Agencies

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the D.C. Circuit court today in Wilcox v....
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New York v. Trump

In New York v. Trump, the First Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral and categorical decision to freeze all federal funding to programs that do not align with its policy priorities violates federal...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump

In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to dismantle the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), including by suspending all USRAP funding, violates federal law and the...
Rule of Law
March 13, 2025

March 2025 Newsletter: Ongoing Challenges and New Victories