Judge Refuses To Toss Congressional Dems’ Emoluments Suit Against Trump

in the grand ballroom of Trump International Hotel, (l-r), Eric Trump, and his father U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump, onstage in the grand ballroom for the grand opening ceremony for their family's latest p... in the grand ballroom of Trump International Hotel, (l-r), Eric Trump, and his father U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump, onstage in the grand ballroom for the grand opening ceremony for their family's latest property, Trump International Hotel - Old Post Office, in Washington, DC on October 26, 2016. The event was closed to the public, and included VIP guests and employees of Trump. (Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto) *** Please Use Credit from Credit Field *** MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A D.C. federal judge refused to throw out a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

In a 48-page opinion Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan denied a motion from Trump to dismiss the case. Trump’s argument rested on a narrow definition of “emolument.” The judge found that argument unpersuasive.

“The President’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years,” Sullivan wrote.

Congressional Democrats sued Trump in June 2017, alleging that profits he received from his hotels that came from foreign government visitors constituted a violation of the emoluments clause, which prohibits presidents from receiving gifts or things of value from foreign governments.

 

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. Someone bring more toilet paper, Hair Furor is going to be on the throne madly tweet-storming during executive time (again).

  2. Popcorn, get your freshly popped popcorn right here, folks.

  3. Oh boy, the fun starts.

  4. The President’s definition, however, disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years.

    That’s awesome. In other words, “get fucked”.

  5. So unfair!!

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

149 more replies

Participants

Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for mattinpa Avatar for george_spiggott Avatar for rollinnolan Avatar for dont Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for sparrowhawk Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for lastroth Avatar for gr Avatar for nemo Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for darrtown Avatar for beattycat Avatar for jtx Avatar for jacksonhts Avatar for justruss Avatar for carolson Avatar for zillacop Avatar for inthesedays Avatar for outis Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for kovie

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: