Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(128,845 posts) Wed Jul 10, 2019, 10:49 AM Jul 2019

Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all]

Source: Washington Post

A federal appeals court Wednesday sided with President Trump, dismissing a lawsuit claiming the president is illegally profiting from foreign and state government visitors at his luxury hotel in downtown Washington. The unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is a victory for the president in a novel case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia involving anti-corruption provisions in the emoluments clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The president is facing series of legal challenges related to his private business, including a separate lawsuit from Congressional Democrats. The emoluments clauses at issue in the 4th Circuit case were designed to prevent undue influence on government officials but have never been applied in court to a sitting president. Despite the legal challenges his company faces, to this point Trump has been able to prevent the release of any private business information to the courts, leaving Democrats to wonder if Trump will be affected by any of the inquiries before he goes up for re-election next year.

In its ruling Wednesday, the three-judge panel said the attorneys general lacked legal standing to bring the lawsuit alleging the president is violating the Constitution when his business accepts payments from state and foreign governments. The decision -- from Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Dennis W. Shedd and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. -- also stops dozens of subpoenas to federal government agencies and Trump's private business entities for financial records related to the D.C. hotel.

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, both Democrats, have said they would consider appealing for a rehearing by a full panel of the 4th Circuit and would not be surprised to see the case reach the Supreme Court.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-lawsuit-involving-president-trumps-dc-hotel/2019/07/10/4a4b6190-886e-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html

ETA - seems that the court didn't rule on the merits but that those bringing suit "didn't have standing". Let's hope I interpreted that correctly!

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals court dismisses 'emoluments' lawsuit involving President Trump's D.C. hotel [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 OP

Three judges ruled in his favor...he can continue to gain wealth BigmanPigman Jul 2019 #1

They could request "en banc" BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #4

Don't know who the three are. This is the current 4th circuit onecaliberal Jul 2019 #14

Reagan, George w, and trump. Tech Jul 2019 #27

They didn't rule on the substance, only on whether these plaintiffs had standing to sue. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #51

That is a good explanation of the situation. BigmanPigman Jul 2019 #53

Wouldn't every/any American citizen have standing? Nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2019 #2

This is an odd issue given that the hotel in question is in the District BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #5

YES!!! ewagner Jul 2019 #7

No. Just as not every citizen had standing to bring a birther lawsuit. onenote Jul 2019 #11

No. There are a ton of cases holding that a claim of generalized injuries The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #52

If the DAs of 2 States he's collecting bribes from don't have standing who would? Farmer-Rick Jul 2019 #3

I would think this could be an Impeachment Article BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #8

I think that most people on DU understand by now the Senate's role in any impeachment and in2herbs Jul 2019 #23

I disagree BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #26

This appears to be conservative judges latest trick... ewagner Jul 2019 #6

I do too BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #9

Standing is not a "trick" onenote Jul 2019 #15

So, who do you think has standing? The other hotels in the area? Farmer-Rick Jul 2019 #22

There should be a remedy for determining who has/gets/suffers standing ArizonaLib Jul 2019 #30

Members of Congress have sued and, so far, held to have standing. onenote Jul 2019 #38

Standing is no one's "latest trick" and it is not a "nonissue". former9thward Jul 2019 #20

Yes. Trump profiting off the hotel is scummy, shady, and distasteful, but its legal. nt SylviaD Jul 2019 #50

I understand this...however, ewagner Jul 2019 #55

But there are 2 cases True Blue American Jul 2019 #31

Okay D.C. Residents JustAnotherGen Jul 2019 #10

Lets be honest about something ScratchCat Jul 2019 #12

So, who exactly DOES have standing to enforce the emoluments clause? LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jul 2019 #13

Members of Congress have sued. They likley have standing. onenote Jul 2019 #17

The elected office of the Attorney General of D.C. should be considered to have standing BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #19

What injury would he be asserting? onenote Jul 2019 #39

Financial injury (including security costs among other things) for the city BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #43

Those are precisely the types of injuries the court found didn't confer standing onenote Jul 2019 #44

I'd personally like to see an en banc ruling... BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #45

The court found that protection of competition was not in the "zone of interests" that the clause is onenote Jul 2019 #46

I expect that if we manage to make it through this nightmare BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #47

You can be certain that as soon as there is a Democrat onenote Jul 2019 #48

Ain't that the damn truth. BumRushDaShow Jul 2019 #49

Thanks so much for clarifying...I'm still unclear on 'standing' and ... SWBTATTReg Jul 2019 #29

Why would members of Congress have standing? FBaggins Jul 2019 #34

The reason Judge Sullivan gave onenote Jul 2019 #41

I was a lawyer who started out as a law clerk for a circuit judge. LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jul 2019 #54

The problem with the "no standing" argument is unblock Jul 2019 #16

Again, members of Congress have brought their own suit and were found to have standing onenote Jul 2019 #18

Not really FBaggins Jul 2019 #33

but it's a basic principal of constitutional interpretation that clauses were written for a reason. unblock Jul 2019 #35

That's actually discussed a bit in the 4th Circuit's ruling FBaggins Jul 2019 #36

NBC News story... PoliticAverse Jul 2019 #21

so the emoluments clause is no longer enforceable. nt yaesu Jul 2019 #24

it is enforceable by those who have standing, may be, if it were clear who has that beyond Congress. Thomas Hurt Jul 2019 #25

There are 2 more cases! True Blue American Jul 2019 #32

Bullshit! Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2019 #28

The 4th Circuit's dismissal of this suit leaves two other Emoluments Clause suits in place,... mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2019 #37

His entire Presidency is being used to benefit him and his crime family. What a joke. YOHABLO Jul 2019 #40

Here is the decision onenote Jul 2019 #42