Will the Democrats’ lawsuit against Trump work?

By Jill Disis

Democrats say President Trump is for sale — and they’re taking him to court to stop it.

Some of the nearly 200 Democratic lawmakers suing the president over his business holdings argue that Trump’s refusal to respect the Constitution left them no choice.

“We don’t do this out of any sense of partisanship, but because President Trump has left us absolutely no other option,” Representative John Conyers of Michigan said on Tuesday.

The suit claims Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting foreign payments through his empire of hotels, golf courses, trademarks and other properties, all without the consent of Congress.

Trump refused to sell his business holdings when he took office. Instead he shifted the assets to a trust in his name. If the business succeeds while he is president, he will ultimately profit.

And the Democrats say foreign money is helping enrich him. The lawsuit cites press reports about a Saudi government-backed lobbying firm that paid for a room at Trump’s luxury hotel in Washington in January, and a celebration held there in February by the Embassy of Kuwait.

Lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents or their administrations aren’t unprecedented, but the latest is significant for its scope.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives sued President Barack Obama’s administration three years ago over its handling of the Affordable Care Act. That case is still pending.

But the lawsuit against Trump is unusual because it concerns his actions as a private citizen, said Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The White House has said it expects the Justice Department will move to have the case dismissed. The Justice Department this month asked a federal court to throw out a similar suit filed by a government ethics watchdog group and some businesses.

But lawmakers, in a press briefing on Tuesday, insisted they had special reason to bring this case. And though the Foreign Emoluments Clause has never been tested in court, they claimed the law would still be on their side.

“There is a line of cases that say, essentially, when the president denies Congress the opportunity to vote, then members of Congress have standing,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Their lawsuit cites a case from 1979: Senator Barry Goldwater and other lawmakers sued President Jimmy Carter over his decision to nullify a treaty with Taiwan.

The Supreme Court ruled against Goldwater, but it didn’t deny his ability to bring a lawsuit, said Brian Frazelle, appellate counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center, which is working on the congressional lawsuit.

Frazelle said a lower court granted standing to Goldwater and the other senators based on their claim that Carter had deprived them of a vote to stop the treaty from ending.

That kind of argument could help the Democrats, said Stan Brand, a Washington attorney who once served as general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives under former Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat.

Brand said lawmakers can argue that Trump has stripped them of their power to serve as a check on the president. The Emoluments Clause says only Congress can grant an exception and allow the president to accept gifts from foreign governments. But Trump hasn’t asked.

Others weren’t so sure. Roosevelt said he thought the argument for standing was weak because this case lacks the “direct interference” at the center of the Goldwater case.

“What they’re saying is, basically, in all of the ways in which we interact with the president — we pass a bill and the president signs it and vetoes it — we’re concerned that he’s going to be behaving corruptly, and that tarnishes our ability to faithfully exercise our duties,” Roosevelt said.

Another factor: Even having this many lawmakers sign on might not be enough.

David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the architects of the GOP-led House’s lawsuit against Obama, said standing can only be achieved when Congress as an institution sues the president, not individual members — even if it’s nearly 200 of them.

The Obama lawsuit, for example, was approved by a House resolution. The chamber voted in favor of authorizing the challenge 225 to 201 under then-Speaker John Boehner. Five Republicans and every Democrat opposed.

“No matter how many members you have, as long as you do not have institutional authorization, you would not be able to gain standing,” Rivkin said.

 

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