Judge Gives Green Light to Democrats’ Lawsuit Against Trump Hotel Profits

The nearly-two-year-old lawsuit brought by Democratic lawmakers challenging the constitutionality of President Trump’s ongoing business arrangements got the green light to go forward on Tuesday.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia rejected the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case, which argues that Trump is in violation of the Constitution’s foreign Emoluments Clause barring U.S. officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign governments.

The chief example is the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where the Trump Organization won a 60-year lease from the General Services Administration signed before Trump ran for president. Critics—including other litigants from nonprofit legal organizations and competing neighborhood restaurants—argue that Trump’s failure to divest himself of his business holdings makes patronage of the hotel by foreign dignitaries a form of gift that could influence policymaking.

“With 'Emolument’ defined broadly as any profit, gain, or advantage, it is clear that the amended complaint states a plausible claim against the president for violations of the clause,” the judge wrote in accepting the latest version of the complaint brought by 200 lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. The lawmakers, both on the Judiciary panel in their chambers, had assistance from the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center.

 “Plaintiffs have alleged that the president has accepted a variety of Emoluments from foreign governments—intellectual property rights, payments for hotel rooms and events, payments derived from real estate holdings, licensing fees for 'The Apprentice,' and regulatory benefits—without seeking and obtaining the consent of Congress,” the judge said.  “Accepting the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, which the court must at this juncture, plaintiffs’ allegations state a plausible claim for relief, and survive the president’s motion to dismiss.”

The Justice attorneys had argued that emolument “was a common characteristic of a federal office . . . comprehensively describ[ing] ‘every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office'…..According to the president, this was because most federal officials did not receive salaries as is the case today, but rather, were compensated by fees in exchange for their services.” The Justice team found it “implausible that this amendment was intended or understood as providing for the revocation of the citizenship of anyone engaging in commerce with foreign governments or their instrumentalities,” according to the judge’s summary. And the president argued that “the remedy plaintiffs seek is unconstitutional because an injunction against him in his official capacity would effectively 'impose a condition on [his] ability to serve as president and to perform the duties he is duly elected to perform.’ ”

Sen. Blumenthal hailed the ruling “as a tremendous victory and vindication of a common sense reading of the Constitution. In an extraordinarily well-reasoned opinion, the court soundly rejected the president’s absurd argument that he is above the law. The next step should be discovery and full disclosure of all the documents and evidence relevant to our emoluments claims.”

Nadler said, “The Framers made it clear that government officials from the president on down were not to accept any benefits from foreign governments without first obtaining the consent of Congress. The Framers didn’t want the president to be influenced by foreign powers like Spain, England, and France in the 1780s or Russia or Saudi Arabia today. I am gratified that today the court agreed with me.”

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the constitutional center, said: “This challenge on behalf of members of Congress addresses all of the foreign government benefits President Trump is accepting through all his businesses, worldwide. We look forward to continuing to explain why President Trump must abide by the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco told Government Executive, “As we argued, we believe this case should be dismissed, and we will continue to defend the president in court.”