Rule of Law

Judge says emoluments suit against Trump can proceed

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that 200 congressional Democrats can sue President Donald Trump for benefiting from doing business with foreign governments, a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia, said the lawmakers have a legal standing to proceed with the lawsuit in a Friday ruling. The plaintiffs — led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. — argue that Trump is violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause by earning profits from the Trump International Hotel.

The emoluments clause of the Constitution says no person holding office may, without the consent of Congress, accept a present of any kind from a foreign state. Watchdogs insist that Trump is violating the Constitution whenever his hotels or golf courses receive a payment from a foreign government.

Sullivan said that if the allegations made by Democratic lawmakers are true, “the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress,” a violation of the Constitution. He said the plaintiffs showed enough evidence to proceed with the case.

Blumenthal called the ruling “a real milestone.”

The Constitutional Accountability Center, which represented the Democratic lawmakers in the case, called it a “major victory.”

“This is a momentous ruling. 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,” the organization said.

“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.”

The Justice Department said it expects the case to be dismissed.

Sullivan is the second judge to allow an emoluments case against Trump. In March, District Court Judge Peter Messitte of Maryland approved a similar lawsuit.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.