The lawsuit over the emoluments clause just had a big break.
By
Dylan Scott@dylanlscottdylan.scott@v
A
federal judge unexpectedly declined to dismiss a lawsuit Wednesday that argues
President Donald Trump’s continued stake in the Trump Organization is
unconstitutional. The litigation, which accuses Trump of violating a
constitutional prohibition on accepting certain gifts or payments, can go
forward.
Maryland
and Washington, DC, have sued Trump over the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause,
which forbids federal officials from accepting emoluments, a term for gifts or
payments for services or labor from foreign governments or US states. (There’s
some debate among scholars about what actually constitutes an “emolument,” which
is relevant to the suit.)
The
suit argued that Trump is violating the Constitution because his businesses,
including his DC hotel, are making money all over the world and receiving
payments from foreign governments and their representatives as well as state and
federal officials.
The
lawsuit seemed like a long shot when it was filed last June. The biggest
question was whether the states could show that they had “standing” in the case
— that is, that they had suffered injury that would give them grounds to sue. If
a judge found they did not, the lawsuit would be over before it really
began.
But
on Wednesday, US District Judge Peter Messitte, who was appointed by President
Bill Clinton, ruled that the states did have standing and the lawsuit could
continue:
Plaintiffs
have sufficiently alleged that the President is violating the Foreign and
Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution by reason of his involvement
with and receipt of benefits from the Trump International Hotel and its
appurtenances in Washington, D.C. as well as the operations of the Trump
Organization with respect to the same. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their
standing to challenge those purported violations because they have shown
injury-in-fact, fairly traceable to the President’s acts, and that the injury is
likely redressable by the Court.
The
thrust of Messitte’s decision is that the states successfully showed they have
been injured by the advantages that Trump’s businesses — most importantly, his
DC hotel — gained over the states and their interests (like other hotels that
receive taxpayer money) through his continued business stake in the Trump
Organization while he serves as president of the United States.
Read
more
No comments:
Post a Comment