Nearly 200 Democrats plan emoluments suit against Trump, claim Constitution gives them standing

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Congressional Democrats claim in a suit to be filed on Wednesday that the emoluments clause gives them standing to challenge benefits received from foreign leaders by President Donald Trump’s business organization.

The suit will be filed by 196 Democrats, the Washington Post reports. The lead Senate plaintiff, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the number of congressional plaintiffs is higher than in any other suit filed against a president.

The emoluments clause states that, absent congressional consent, no one holding any office of profit or trust shall “accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”

Democrats argue they have standing because congressional consent is required before the president can accept gifts and benefits from foreign leaders.

Two other lawsuits have also claimed Trump is violating the emoluments clause because foreign governments pay for hotel rooms at Trump properties and conduct business with the Trump organization.

One suit was filed by the attorneys general for Maryland and Washington, D.C., and the other was initially filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. Two additional plaintiffs have joined the CREW suit—an advocacy group for restaurant workers and a woman who books events at hotels in Washington, D.C.

The Justice Department has argued the plaintiffs in the CREW suit lack standing because they can’t allege a specific harm caused by hotel revenue from foreign governments. The department has also argued that fair-market payments to a business aren’t a benefit that violates the emoluments clause.

The state attorneys general argue that Trump’s D.C. hotel is taking business away from a convention center in the district that is owned by taxpayers, and from a taxpayer-subsidized convention center in Maryland.

Experts interviewed by the Post differed on whether the Democratic lawmakers have standing to sue. “Because this is individual legislators who don’t have any individual injuries, it will be hard for them to get standing,” said University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal.

More from

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Civil and Human Rights
April 17, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Today Is Important Win for Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Rule of Law
April 15, 2024

Q&A: Yes, Trump could be elected president as a convicted felon

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON —  Former President Trump made history last year as the first of the nation’s chief...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, David G. Savage
Civil and Human Rights
April 15, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v....
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Secretary, State of Georgia

In Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Secretary, State of Georgia and two consolidated cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on vote...
Rule of Law
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: In Narrow Takings Clause Decision, Justices Do Not Take up Extreme Request to Expand Takings Clause

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Sheetz v. County...
By: Nina Henry