READ: DC Circuit Tosses Emoluments Lawsuit By Members Of Congress

at Old Post Office on July 23, 2014 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: Trump family members (L to R) Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump break ground at the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C Groundbreaking Ceremony at Old Post ... WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: Trump family members (L to R) Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump break ground at the Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C Groundbreaking Ceremony at Old Post Office on July 23, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/WireImage) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

A D.C. appeals court threw out a lawsuit on Friday accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, ruling that the lawmakers who filed the case lacked standing to sue.

Democratic members of Congress sued Trump in June 2017 over his alleged violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from receiving foreign payments while in office.

The lawmakers had alleged that Trump’s continued ownership of his D.C. hotel and other businesses meant that he was receiving payments from foreign officials.

But in a per curiam opinion a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit ruled that the lawmakers could not use the judiciary to settle the dispute. Justice Department attorneys representing Trump in the case had argued that Congress cannot resort to the courts to resolve disputes with the executive branch.

“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the opinion reads. “But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate. The Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”

Last year, a lower court ruled against Trump and found that the members of Congress did have standing to sue over the alleged Emoluments Clause violation.

“Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the Members—29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives—do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the opinion reads.

The court held that because the Democratic lawmakers did not constitute a majority of Congress, they could not bring a lawsuit on behalf of the whole legislature. The lawsuit, therefore, was no different from one filed “by a single member.”

The decision comes in one of three separate lawsuits accusing the President of violating the Constitution’s ban on accepting foreign emoluments.

A second suit – brought by the D.C. and Maryland attorneys general – is currently awaiting resolution at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond after the court reheard the case en banc following its dismissal by an earlier panel.

In the third case, filed in Manhattan federal court, some local restaurants and hotels have claimed that Trump’s alleged receipt of foreign emoluments puts them at an unfair competitive advantage.

Read the opinion here:

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. So it goes…

  2. Quelle surprise… :smirk:

  3. Avatar for gregor gregor says:

    Pinochet, Qadaffi, Marcos et. al must be clapping and wondering at the beauty of this enterprise, and saying oh, what if this man had been there before me so I could have learnt from him.

  4. Any attorneys in here want to tell us just who does have standing in an emoluments complaint?

  5. So what is the proper remedy, if the courts have declared that they cannot adjudicate disputes between the Legislative and Executive branches? Are they saying, “Even though it is written plainly in the Constitution, emoluments cannot be prevented unless Congress writes a specific law prohibiting them.”?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

220 more replies

Participants

Avatar for robg Avatar for playitagainrowlf Avatar for silvrfox Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for old_curmudgeon Avatar for eggrollian Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for rick Avatar for sniffit Avatar for daveyjones64 Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for left_in_washington_state Avatar for musgrove Avatar for serendipitoussomnambulist Avatar for moreyampersand Avatar for pine Avatar for daulphin Avatar for rickjones Avatar for skeptical Avatar for nocomment Avatar for evave2 Avatar for txlawyer Avatar for paul_lukasiak Avatar for rockitttla

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: