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
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.
Rule of Law
February 4, 2026

‘This Occupation Has to End!’ Omar Argues After Homan Says Most Agents Will Stay in Minnesota

Common Dreams
“Every single ICE and CBP agent should be out of Minnesota,” the congresswoman said. “The...
Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pitchford v. Cain

In Pitchford v. Cain, the Supreme Court is considering whether, under federal habeas law, the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably held that a criminal defendant waived his right to challenge racial bias in his jury selection.
Rule of Law
January 29, 2026

We, the People: Defending the U.S. Constitution As Immigration Raids Threaten Basic Rights

TriplePundit
With administration officials saying agents are immune to accountability, many are understandably wondering: What rights...
Rule of Law
January 30, 2026

CAC Release: Lemon Arrest the Trump Administration’s Latest Assault on the First Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the arrest of journalist Don Lemon, Constitutional Accountability Center...
By: Praveen Fernandes