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

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes