Rule of Law

DC Judge Advances Emoluments Case Against Trump

More than 200 Democratic lawmakers can move forward with a lawsuit against President Donald Trump claiming that his private business dealings with foreign governments violate the Constitution, a federal judge ruled Friday.

At the heart of the case is the archaic anti-corruption foreign emoluments clause, which says the president cannot accept foreign payments, benefits or gifts while in office without congressional consent.

During a June 7 hearing the government urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the lawmakers – led by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal and New Jersey Representative Jerrold Nadler – do not have standing.

More than three months later, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan officially disagreed.

While the government argued the aggrieved lawmakers should draft legislation specifically addressing the president’s ability to accept emoluments, Sullivan said the court can intervene in certain disputes between political branches.

“This case is one of those disputes,” Sullivan stated in his 58-page ruling.

The burden is on the president, not on lawmakers, to persuade Congress to consent to the acceptance of foreign payments, Sullivan said.

“The legislation suggested by the President flips this burden, placing the burden on Members of Congress to convince a majority of their colleagues to enact the suggested legislation,” he added. “This is not what the Clause requires.”

In any case, such legislation would not prevent Trump from taking future gifts or require him to return any he has already accepted, the ruling noted.

“This is a momentous ruling,” Brianne Gorod with the Constitutional Accountability Center, who argued on behalf of the lawmakers in June, said in an email. “Judge Sullivan correctly reviewed the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law in this area, and concluded that President Trump harms members of Congress by accepting benefits from foreign governments without first obtaining their affirmative consent. By recognizing that Members of Congress have standing to sue, the court proved to all in America today that no one is above the law, not even the President. We look forward to making our case on the merits in coming weeks that President Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause and must be permanently enjoined from doing so.”

Blumenthal and the other lawmakers say they’ve been deprived of their rights to vote on, and therefore consent to, any foreign gifts President Trump may have accepted.

All other modern presidents have sought advice about whether an emolument, such as President Obama’s 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, would conflict with the clause.

In addition, prior presidents have submitted letters to Congress detailing an offered emolument, after which Congress votes on whether they can accept it.

According to Sullivan, the lawmakers put forth an injury – the nullification of their individual votes – that can be traced to the president and is redressable by the court.

“Although plaintiffs’ claims raise separation-of-powers concerns, plaintiffs have no adequate legislative remedy and this dispute is capable of resolution through the judicial process,” Sullivan wrote.

While Trump relinquished daily management of his sprawling business, he did not divest from or place his business interests into a truly blind trust. He has also not sought congressional consent for anything that would qualify as an emolument, such as foreign income from his properties.

At this stage, the court must interpret a complaint’s allegations as true before it considers the merits of the case.

If the allegations are true, “the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress,” Sullivan wrote (emphasis in the original).

Friday’s ruling comes two months after a federal judge in Maryland advanced a similar lawsuit against the president claiming that profits he receives from his Washington, D.C. luxury hotel from government patrons violates the foreign emoluments clause.

The Justice Department also did not respond to a request for comment.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 7, 2020

Court tosses lawmaker lawsuit against Trump over emoluments

CQ/Roll Call
A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by more than...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Todd Ruger
Rule of Law
February 13, 2020

Advocates In Conn. Sue ICE, Claiming Agency’s Acting-Director Is Serving Illegally

WBUR
A lawsuit filed Thursday in Connecticut's U.S. District Court alleges the Trump administration's acting director of U.S....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Shannon Dooling
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

ASISTA Immigration Assistance v. Albence

Challenging a Trump Administration change in immigration policy that harms crime victims and law enforcement efforts, because the official who issued the new policy is serving unlawfully as the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and...
Rule of Law
February 7, 2020

Appeals court rules Democrats can’t sue Trump over emoluments claims

The Hill
“The Framers included the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution as the Constitution’s chief bulwark...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Harper Neidig
Rule of Law
February 7, 2020

Appeals court determines Blumenthal, other Democrats lack standing to sue Trump

Hartford Courant
“The Court of Appeals did not in any way approve of President Trump’s repeated and...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Ana Radelat
Rule of Law
February 7, 2020

What Is The Emoluments Clause? Appellate Court Throws Out Suit Against Trump

International Business Times
KEY POINTS The emoluments clause prohibits federal officials, including the president, from accepting payments from...