U.S. Court of Appeals orders stay in Emoluments lawsuit brought by Maryland, D.C.
"Explainer: Why Trump's legal woes go beyond the Mueller report [...] “EMOLUMENTS” LAWSUIT Trump is accused in a lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia of violating anti-corruption provisions of the U.S. Constitution through his businesses’ dealings with foreign governments."
The suit by Maryland and the District of Columbia alleges that Trump violated a constitutional prohibition on profiting from his post by doing business with foreign governments.
In Tuesday’s order, signed by law clerk Patricia S. Connor, the court said parties will need to argue the very basis for the lawsuit, namely, their right to seek relief from Trump.
Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for March 19.
Earlier this month, dozens of subpoenas were issued to businesses affiliated with Trump .. https://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics-government/donald-trump-PEBSL000163-topic.html .. and others. Frosh said some organizations had already responded to the subpoenas and that others could if they chose to. He did not view it as a setback for the case and said the ruling was simply procedural, not on the merits of the case. “We will vigorously defend our position,” Frosh said. “We believe that the president is violating the constitution by using his office to profit from it.”
Among those receiving subpoenas were 13 Trump organizations, including The Trump Organization Inc., Trump International Hotels Management LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC and The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.
The case centers on foreign dignitaries paying to stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Frosh and Racine say Trump’s ownership of a business that accepts money from foreign governments violates the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. The framers of the Constitution adopted the clause out of concern that foreign heads of state could exert influence over the president or other federal officials.
Frosh could not immediately be reached for comment.
But if you look at the history of the words, and their likely meaning at the time, it appears that the emoluments restriction was limited to gains arising from one's station or employment within the government, not one's outside investments or businesses.
It's not just reasonable minds that differ on the issue. Brilliant academic scholars bitterly disagree about it, too. Those who believe Trump has violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause, for example, take the position that any benefit, or any payment at all from a foreign government, is an automatic violation .. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-emoluments-clause-its-text-meaning-and-application-to-donald-j-trump/ . To them, if a single Saudi prince bought a Trump steak with royal money on the first day of the presidency, then the Foreign Emoluments Clause was violated and continues to be violated daily with every steak, hotel room or golf club membership purchased by a foreign government which is inuring to the benefit to the President.
This is an overly restrictive reading of the Emoluments Clauses and the words contained therein. It's a modern interpretation that is at odds with the history and meaning of the terms as they were understood at the time of the Constitutional convention. The word "emoluments" is limited to benefits derived from one's office.
In one 1850 case, the court defined emoluments as relatively "comprehensive," but still only "embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office. ..." Accordingly, there's support for the proposition that the payment must be for official services. A payment from a Saudi prince directly to Trump for a pardon of a Saudi national prosecuted by federal authorities would be a purchase of the President's official services, and surely a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The President's many businesses do not (at least not officially) offer presidential influence for sale. Steaks are not the same as pardons, or trade deals, or plum government contracts.
And even for those who advocate that any benefit violates the clause, a strict reading would actually defeat the plaintiffs' case.
VIDEO: - Attorneys general sue Trump for violating Constitution 03:10
The "any benefit" folks are right that the text of the Constitution contains no explanation or limitation of the word "emolument" or the other kinds of benefits that violate the clause. But strict reading of the text also forecloses any violation of the clause because of another word: "Person." The Foreign Emoluments Clause says that "no person holding any office of profit or trust" shall accept. ... There is no mention of "business entity" or "corporation" or "limited liability limited partnership." When expounding the Constitution, every word must be given its appropriate meaning; the presumption is that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. You may say: "Yeah, but come on. The framers didn't anticipate or deal with multinational companies." Sure they did. Long before there was Big Pharma, there was Big Indigo and Big Tea in the form of the British East India Company. The Amazon.com of the 17th century was created by a royal charter, but Americans took the corporate concept and adapted it to private enterprise. For example, when an employee at Amazon receives his paycheck as payment, he doesn't receive money directly from us, the customers -- although we may all be happy to turn over half of our paycheck to the corporate giant for Amazon Prime and same-day delivery service. Still, no one would argue that customers are directly paying the guy working the conveyor belt at a shipping facility. He's paid by the company.
Similarly, a payment to Trump's company is probably not a violation. But even assuming for argument's sake that foreign governments paying Trump's companies is the same as paying him, these payments are not for presidential services. They are for non-presidential steaks, or "yuge" hotel rooms, or other products and services.
The Maryland/DC lawsuit could go either way, but it should be dismissed. As a public policy, it would foreclose any successful businessman who wants to continue to own his enterprise in the future from running for president. To some, that may not be a bad result, but the problem is that it wouldn't be a constitutional outcome.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
