Democratic Lawmakers Sue Trump, Handing The President Another Legal Challenge

By Marilyn Geewax

More than 190 Democrats in Congress have joined together to sue President Trump on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

They say Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by profiting from business deals involving foreign governments — and doing so without congressional consent. And they want the court to make it stop.

Trump has “repeatedly and flagrantly violated” the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters on a conference call.

The clause says that “without the Consent of the Congress,” the president can’t accept benefits “of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Blumenthal said Trump “has never sought the consent of Congress” for the profits from deals in the more than 20 countries where he has business operations.

Just one example he offered: Trump has sought — and obtained — valuable trademarks from China’s government, but did not clear those transactions with Congress.

Blumenthal, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it took “a lot of research” involving legal experts to determine who would have legal standing to successfully sue the president. “We have standing that no one else has” because the Constitution makes it clear “the consent of Congress is absolutely essential,” he said.

The Democrats believe that Trump “must either sell his vast holdings … or he must tell us and disclose now” all of the benefits he gets from foreign governments, he said. They want to see the president’s tax returns and business records.

This suit is just the latest in a series of legal efforts to force Trump to fully separate himself from this business interests. Other suits have been filed by a public-interest group representing private businesses and the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia representing their jurisdictions.

That means Trump is now facing a triple threat in court, with plaintiffs coming at him from 1) the private sector, 2) the state level and 3) Congress. Each group must try to convince a court that it has the legal standing to challenge a president.

The private businesses say they are being harmed because Trump’s D.C. hotel is presenting unfair competition, i.e., foreign officials take their business to Trump to win his favor. And Maryland’s attorney general says that state’s National Harbor resort — just across the river from Washington — also faces unfair competition.

But the Democratic lawmakers are focused on what they call the harm being done by being stripped of the consent power granted by the Constitution.

Trump has stepped back from daily management of the Trump Organization, but he has moved the assets into a trust, headed by his two oldest sons and a business associate. Trump is the sole beneficiary of the trust, and his son Eric Trump has said the president gets regular updates on profits.

On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about the attorneys general lawsuit, and he replied that Trump’s business interests “do not violate the Emoluments Clause.”

Spicer noted that the lawsuits are being brought by Democrats. “It’s not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations” for filing suit, Spicer said.

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
September 5, 2024

“Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review”

Election Law Blog
David Gans, Brianne Gorod, and Anna Jessurun have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review)....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans, Anna Jessurun, Rick Hasen
Rule of Law
September 5, 2024

Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship

On my first day at the Constitutional Accountability Center, I worked on a brief about...
By: Jess Zalph
Rule of Law
September 2, 2024

Transgender rights, ghost guns, porn ID cases on Supreme Court docket; stakes high in next term

The Washington Times
The Supreme Court is still on its three-month summer recess but already has loaded its docket with...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Alex Swoyer
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202

In In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Mick v. Gibbons

In Mick v. Gibbons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering whether the doctrine of state sovereign immunity applies to third party subpoenas.