"WASHINGTON — In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., found that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump.
The judges roundly rejected the premise of the case, which claimed that the Trump International Hotel, blocks from the White House, is unfairly siphoning off business from hotels in which the local jurisdictions have a financial interest. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Constitution’s anti-corruption, or “emoluments,” clauses, was about to enter the evidence-gathering phase.
“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies,” the panel wrote in its decision.
Until Mr. Trump took office, no court had ever ruled on the meaning of the emoluments clauses or how they could be enforced, if at all. The Fourth Circuit panel’s decision is unlikely to be the last word. The plaintiffs could appeal to the full court, which is less conservative than the judges who ruled. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
A similar case, filed by congressional Democrats, is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and legal experts say the question could well wind up before the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, the decision was welcome for a White House facing legal challenges on a host of issues including its handling of the 2020 census and Mr. Trump’s refusal to turn over his tax returns to Congress.
Mr. Trump promptly expressed his satisfaction, saying he has lost money, not enriched himself, since taking office. “Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt,” he wrote on Twitter. “Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case.”
The appellate judges said Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md., who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, had abused his discretion by allowing the case to proceed. They said it was pure speculation that foreign or state officials stayed at the Trump hotel to please the president, rather than for other reasons. And even if that was true, they said, the plaintiffs had failed to show how a court could remedy the problem.
“Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the president’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel,” the 36-page opinion said. “The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family.”
The judges described the emoluments clauses as broad prohibitions intended to guarantee a president’s independence and restrict the president’s ability to accept financial benefits from foreign or state officials seeking influence.
“Neither clause expressly confers any rights on any person, nor does either clause specify any remedy for a violation,” they wrote. Given the lack of precedent for such lawsuits, they said, Judge Messitte should have allowed the Justice Department to appeal his rulings in midstream rather than force the department to seek an emergency intervention by the appeals court.
That was especially true given that a federal judge in New York had recently thrown out a similar suit against Mr. Trump, they wrote.
“To allow such a suit to go forward in the district court without a resolution of the controlling issues by a court of appeals could result in an unnecessary intrusion into the duties and affairs of a sitting president,” they said.
In a statement, Karl A. Racine and Brian E. Frosh, the attorneys general for the District of Columbia and Maryland, said, “We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the nation’s original anti-corruption laws.”
“The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the president’s violation of the Constitution is plain error,” they said.
It is unclear whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision will influence the judges on the District of Columbia Circuit as they consider the emoluments lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats. That case alleges that Mr. Trump has violated the Constitution by failing to seek Congress’s permission before accepting financial benefits from foreign governments, including at the Trump International Hotel.
It is also likely to turn on the question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue the president. Legal experts are divided over whether members of Congress have a stronger or weaker argument than the District of Columbia and Maryland.
Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the congressional case is bolstered because the plaintiffs can point to specific constitutional language giving them a role in deciding whether a president can accept an emolument.
But Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor, said the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that groups of individual legislators could not sue the executive branch. “I would be surprised if that lawsuit actually proceeds,” he said.
The Justice Department, after receiving several adverse decisions by United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, asked the appellate court to halt the congressional case. On Tuesday, the appellate court gave the parties 10 days to file briefs.
In issuing their decision the following day, the Fourth Circuit judges “might have staked out the ground a little bit,” Mr. Grewal said.
After more than two years of litigation, the question of whether any emoluments case against the president will advance to the evidence-gathering stage remains open.
“Law develops slowly,” Mr. Grewal said. “You need somebody who can actually sue, first.”
WASHINGTON — In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., found that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump.
The judges roundly rejected the premise of the case, which claimed that the Trump International Hotel, blocks from the White House, is unfairly siphoning off business from hotels in which the local jurisdictions have a financial interest. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Constitution’s anti-corruption, or “emoluments,” clauses, was about to enter the evidence-gathering phase.
“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies,” the panel wrote in its decision.
Until Mr. Trump took office, no court had ever ruled on the meaning of the emoluments clauses or how they could be enforced, if at all. The Fourth Circuit panel’s decision is unlikely to be the last word. The plaintiffs could appeal to the full court, which is less conservative than the judges who ruled. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
A similar case, filed by congressional Democrats, is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and legal experts say the question could well wind up before the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, the decision was welcome for a White House facing legal challenges on a host of issues including its handling of the 2020 census and Mr. Trump’s refusal to turn over his tax returns to Congress.
Mr. Trump promptly expressed his satisfaction, saying he has lost money, not enriched himself, since taking office. “Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt,” he wrote on Twitter. “Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case.”
The appellate judges said Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md., who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, had abused his discretion by allowing the case to proceed. They said it was pure speculation that foreign or state officials stayed at the Trump hotel to please the president, rather than for other reasons. And even if that was true, they said, the plaintiffs had failed to show how a court could remedy the problem.
“Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the president’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel,” the 36-page opinion said. “The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family.”
The judges described the emoluments clauses as broad prohibitions intended to guarantee a president’s independence and restrict the president’s ability to accept financial benefits from foreign or state officials seeking influence.
“Neither clause expressly confers any rights on any person, nor does either clause specify any remedy for a violation,” they wrote. Given the lack of precedent for such lawsuits, they said, Judge Messitte should have allowed the Justice Department to appeal his rulings in midstream rather than force the department to seek an emergency intervention by the appeals court.
That was especially true given that a federal judge in New York had recently thrown out a similar suit against Mr. Trump, they wrote.
“To allow such a suit to go forward in the district court without a resolution of the controlling issues by a court of appeals could result in an unnecessary intrusion into the duties and affairs of a sitting president,” they said.
In a statement, Karl A. Racine and Brian E. Frosh, the attorneys general for the District of Columbia and Maryland, said, “We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the nation’s original anti-corruption laws.”
“The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the president’s violation of the Constitution is plain error,” they said.
It is unclear whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision will influence the judges on the District of Columbia Circuit as they consider the emoluments lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats. That case alleges that Mr. Trump has violated the Constitution by failing to seek Congress’s permission before accepting financial benefits from foreign governments, including at the Trump International Hotel.
It is also likely to turn on the question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue the president. Legal experts are divided over whether members of Congress have a stronger or weaker argument than the District of Columbia and Maryland.
Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the congressional case is bolstered because the plaintiffs can point to specific constitutional language giving them a role in deciding whether a president can accept an emolument.
But Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor, said the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that groups of individual legislators could not sue the executive branch. “I would be surprised if that lawsuit actually proceeds,” he said.
The Justice Department, after receiving several adverse decisions by United States District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington, asked the appellate court to halt the congressional case. On Tuesday, the appellate court gave the parties 10 days to file briefs.
In issuing their decision the following day, the Fourth Circuit judges “might have staked out the ground a little bit,” Mr. Grewal said.
After more than two years of litigation, the question of whether any emoluments case against the president will advance to the evidence-gathering stage remains open.
“Law develops slowly,” Mr. Grewal said. “You need somebody who can actually sue, first.”
Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case
No comments:
Post a Comment