Blumenthal et al (Dems) v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#26

Post by Addie » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:27 pm

WaPo
Congressional Democrats’ lawsuit alleging Trump’s private business is violating the Constitution can proceed, federal judge rules

A federal judge on Friday gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit filed by 200 congressional Democrats against President Trump alleging that he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while in office.

The lawsuit is based on the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bars presidents from taking payments from foreign states. Trump’s business, which he still owns, has hosted foreign embassy events and visiting foreign officials at its downtown D.C. hotel. ...

In his ruling, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan wrote that the members of Congress “appropriate seek relief in federal court” because they have no way to address their concern about Trump’s alleged violation of the emoluments clause with legislation.

“The Clause requires the President to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited foreign emolument,” Sullivan wrote. If the allegations made by Democrats are true, he said, then “the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress.”

By not asking Congress, Sullivan said, Trump could have effectively “nullified their votes” — which, he said, meant that legislators could seek the unusual remedy of filing a lawsuit against the president. ...

Justice Department attorneys, who are representing Trump, asked the court to dismiss the case. They said Congress doesn’t need to wait for Trump to ask permission — it could act first and pass a bill to ban the president from accepting such compensation.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5689
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#27

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:40 pm

Addie wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:27 pm
WaPo
Congressional Democrats’ lawsuit alleging Trump’s private business is violating the Constitution can proceed, federal judge rules

A federal judge on Friday gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit filed by 200 congressional Democrats against President Trump alleging that he has violated the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments while in office.

The lawsuit is based on the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bars presidents from taking payments from foreign states. Trump’s business, which he still owns, has hosted foreign embassy events and visiting foreign officials at its downtown D.C. hotel. ...

In his ruling, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan wrote that the members of Congress “appropriate seek relief in federal court” because they have no way to address their concern about Trump’s alleged violation of the emoluments clause with legislation.

“The Clause requires the President to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited foreign emolument,” Sullivan wrote. If the allegations made by Democrats are true, he said, then “the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress.”

By not asking Congress, Sullivan said, Trump could have effectively “nullified their votes” — which, he said, meant that legislators could seek the unusual remedy of filing a lawsuit against the president. ...

Justice Department attorneys, who are representing Trump, asked the court to dismiss the case. They said Congress doesn’t need to wait for Trump to ask permission — it could act first and pass a bill to ban the president from accepting such compensation.
Someone needs a proofreader. Either The Post or Judge Sullivan.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 23601
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#28

Post by Volkonski » Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:35 pm

Daniel Dale Retweeted

David Fahrenthold

Verified account

@Fahrenthold
17m17 minutes ago
More
BREAKING: Federal judge denies @realDonaldTrump's attempt to stop discovery process in "Emoluments Clause" lawsuit by DC/MD A.G.'s. Will allow AGs to get documents showing foreign-government customers at Trump Hotel D.C.
Story coming soon...
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#29

Post by Addie » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:15 pm

WaPo
Congressional Democrats’ emoluments lawsuit targeting President Trump’s private business can proceed, judge says

Democrats in Congress can move ahead with their lawsuit against President Trump alleging that his private business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The decision in Washington from U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan adopted a broad definition of the anti-corruption ban and could set the stage for Democratic lawmakers to begin seeking information from the Trump Organization. The Justice Department can try to delay or block the process by asking an appeals court to intervene. ...

The congressional case, brought by about 200 Democrats, extends beyond the hotel and provides a potential new avenue for the president’s challengers to gain access to a broader array of Trump’s closely held finances.

In a 48-page opinion, the judge refused the request of the president’s legal team to dismiss the case and rejected Trump’s narrow definition of emoluments, finding it “unpersuasive and inconsistent.” ...

Sullivan noted that without seeking permission from Congress, the president has received payments for hotel rooms and events from foreign governments, as well as licensing fees paid by foreign governments for his show “The Apprentice” and intellectual property rights from China.

The emoluments cases, which could eventually end up at the Supreme Court, appear to mark the first time that federal judges have interpreted these clauses and applied their restrictions to a sitting president. The lawsuits were early arrivals to what is now a wide range of investigations and legal battles over the president’s business interests and what information he and his family will be required to provide about them.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#30

Post by Addie » Tue May 14, 2019 9:23 am

The American Prospect
The Emoluments Clause Could Be a Tipping Point in Trump’s Downfall

The obstruction of justice documented in Mueller’s report has gotten more attention, but Trump’s profiting from his office is an open-and-shut impeachment count.


On April 30, a federal district judge rejected Trump’s motion to throw out the lawsuit filed by approximately 201 members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives alleging that Trump has flagrantly violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The case was largely overlooked as national attention has focused on Trump’s obstruction of justice and his efforts to block further congressional scrutiny of his abuses of power.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in a comprehensive 48-page opinion, ruled that the narrow definition of “emoluments” advanced by Trump’s lawyers “disregards the ordinary meaning of the term as set forth in the vast majority of Founding-era dictionaries; is inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption, and purpose of the Clause; and is contrary to Executive Branch practice over the course of many years.”

This was not the first time a federal judge has allowed such a case to go forward against Trump. Last July, in an equally comprehensive 52-page decision, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte denied Trump’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland. Both these lawsuits in essence challenge Trump’s outrageous declaration that “I have a no-conflict situation because I’m president,” a haunting echo of Richard Nixon’s infamous and doomed claim that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

In gratitude to Benjamin Franklin for his service as American minister to France from 1776 to 1785, King Louis XVI gave him a snuffbox festooned with 408 diamonds. Two years later when the Founders wrote the new Constitution, they rejected absolute monarchy but feared that public officials could be corrupted by foreign gifts. They adopted the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8). The Domestic Emoluments Clause further provides that the president shall receive compensation for his services but prohibits the president from receiving “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7).

For the first time since the Constitution was ratified, both federal courts agreed with the plaintiffs that “emoluments” means “any profit, gain, or advantage” and rejected the president’s more narrow definition of “emoluments” to mean only a payment made as compensation for official services. Judge Messitte found Trump’s arguments “unpersuasive,” and “misplaced,” reflecting a “cramped interpretation” of the Constitution, which ignored the “large accumulation of historical evidence” and would lead to an “essentially absurd result.”

The lawsuit filed by the members of Congress asserts that Trump “has a financial interest in vast business holdings around the world that engage in dealings with foreign governments and receive benefits from those governments.” In particular, they allege he owns “more than 500 separate entities—hotels, golf courses, media properties, books, management companies, residential and commercial buildings set up to capitalize on licensing deals,” from which the president himself has acknowledged “his businesses receive funds and make a profit from payments by foreign governments, and that they will continue to do so while he is President.” Trump is the only president for at least 40 years who has not liquidated his business assets or put them in a blind trust.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#31

Post by Addie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:20 pm

The Hill
Judge rejects Trump attempt to push off Democrats' Emoluments Clause lawsuit

A federal judge on Tuesday rejected an attempt by President Trump to stave off a lawsuit alleging that he is in violation of the Emoluments Clause.

Judge Emmet Sullivan turned down a motion from the Department of Justice for an appeals court to review his previous rulings that the lawsuit, brought forward by roughly 200 Democratic members of Congress, can advance.

DOJ lawyers had argued that an appellate court should reexamine the rulings, saying that if the higher court found that the members of Congress did not have the power to sue the president, the lawsuit could be dismissed.

And they also claimed that if the appeals court sided with their definition of the Emoluments Clause in the lawsuit, the complaint could be significantly narrowed.

Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, wrote that “the President has failed to meet his burden of establishing ‘that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.’”

He rejected much of the DOJ’s legal reasoning, finding that the cases they cited as examples of where a review by an appeals court was necessary were not similar enough to this lawsuit.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#32

Post by Addie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:28 pm

Associated Press
DOJ files to halt Trump suit demanding financial documents

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Monday challenged a federal judge’s decision to allow a case accusing President Donald Trump of profiting off the presidency to move forward, asking an appeals court to take up the case instead.

Justice lawyers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overrule a federal judge and instead allow for a mid-case appeal or to dismiss the case outright, calling the case dealing with a Revolutionary War-era clause “extraordinary.”

The government lawyers also want the court to suspend legal discovery recently approved by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, which would force Trump-related entities such as his New York and D.C. hotels, Trump Tower, the Trump Organization, and Mar-a-Lago Club to turn over business tax returns, receipts and other documents.

Justice lawyers said in the filings that answering their 37 subpoena requests in the interim, by July 29, would cause Trump “irreparable injury” and distract him from his official duties.

This is the second time Justice lawyers have petitioned a higher court to take up a case dealing with the emoluments clause, which bans government officials from accepting foreign gifts and money without Congress’ permission. Last December, the federal appeals court agreed to hear a similar case out of a Maryland federal court that had also reached such a point. In the meantime, a stay on proceedings was also allowed.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22076
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#33

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:39 pm

Addie wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:28 pm
Associated Press
DOJ files to halt Trump suit demanding financial documents
:snippity:
The government lawyers also want the court to suspend legal discovery recently approved by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, which would force Trump-related entities such as his New York and D.C. hotels, Trump Tower, the Trump Organization, and Mar-a-Lago Club to turn over business tax returns, receipts and other documents.

Justice lawyers said in the filings that answering their 37 subpoena requests in the interim, by July 29, would cause Trump “irreparable injury” and distract him from his official duties.
:snippity:
How does this trouble dotus when he is (officially) not involved in the day-to-day running of those TrumpOrg entities, only cashing in end of year?

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6638
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#34

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:42 pm

Not a lawyer, but I read it as "You'll let trump do whatever the fuck he wants and you're going to like it."
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#35

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:32 pm

I'd really love to see a panel of Court of Appeals judges ask whatever DOJ lawyer argues this case the following three questions:

1) Is it the position of the United States Department of Justice that the Emoluments Clause is a dead letter?
2) If so, upon what basis?
3) If not, how do you propose to give force to the clause if not by means of allowing the Legislative Branch to obtain documentary evidence?"

I'd love to see "strict constructionist"/"constitutional conservative"-types square this with their precious Imperial Presidency Unitary Executive theory that somehow only applies when a Republican occupies the White House.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#36

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:07 am

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/10/trump-w ... -suit.html

The congressional Democrats case is still ongoing

User avatar
Lani
Posts: 4844
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Some island in the Pacific

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#37

Post by Lani » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:58 pm

Is this the right thread?
Appeals court hands Trump a victory over Democratic challenge to DC hotel
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politi ... cnn.com%2F
Insert signature here: ____________________________________________________

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6638
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#38

Post by Slim Cognito » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:46 pm

:sick:
Goldie reports the party a success and all zombies inebriated eliminated.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5269
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#39

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:45 pm

Lani wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:58 pm
Is this the right thread?
Appeals court hands Trump a victory over Democratic challenge to DC hotel
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politi ... cnn.com%2F
I couldn't find another emoluments thread. There are still multiple ongoing cases including the one from congressional democrats. This one said there was a lack of standing. I'm curious who they feel has standing to sue?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27062
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#40

Post by bob » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:52 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:45 pm
This one said there was a lack of standing. I'm curious who they feel has standing to sue?
Here are the two decisions (three-judge panel with a nominee from the president, and Bushes the Elder & the Younger).

The courts' job isn't to discern who does have standing; just determine whether the plaintiffs before it do. The district court had found standing based on:
D.Md. wrote:(1) the alleged harm to [D.C. and Maryland's] proprietary interests in properties that were in competition with the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; (2) the alleged harm to their parens patriae interests on behalf of their residents’ competitive interests that were similarly harmed; and (3) the alleged harm to their other quasi-sovereign interests in not being pressured to grant the President’s businesses favorable treatment.
And the circuit court rejected all three bases, e.g.:
4th Cir. wrote:[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. After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family. In short, the link between government officials’ patronage of the Hotel and the Hotel’s payment of profits or dividends to the President himself is simply too attenuated.
The court is all but saying it is a political question best left to the political process, i.e., elections and impeachment.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#41

Post by Addie » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:41 am

WaPo
Federal judge temporarily halts congressional Democrats’ subpoenas of Trump financial records

A federal judge temporarily blocked subpoenas from congressional Democrats for President Trump’s financial records after an appeals court weighed in on the issue.

The appeals court in Washington intervened Friday in the legal battle between the lawmakers and Trump over whether the president’s private business violates the Constitution’s ban on gifts or payments from foreign governments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sent the case back to the U.S. District Court judge handling the lawsuit proceedings for another look at how the untested separation-of-powers issues at stake affect whether the case should move ahead and, if so, at what pace.

The lower-court judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, promptly issued an order putting the subpoenas on hold. He previously had said the congressional requests could proceed.

The appeals-court ruling from Judges Patricia A. Millett, Cornelia T.L. Pillard and Robert Wilkins came in response to the president’s request to halt the lawsuit and block 37 subpoenas for information about his private financial records, including ones related to Trump Tower and his Mar-a-Lago Club in South Florida.

The D.C. Circuit said the lower court had probably “abused its discretion” by not allowing the immediate appeal the president requested.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 34454
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Blumenthal et al (Dems) v Trump; USDC for DC; Re Emoluments Clause (3)

#42

Post by Addie » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:31 am

New York Times
Appeals Court Judges Send Emoluments Suit Against Trump Back to a Lower Court

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court delivered a setback on Friday to a lawsuit by congressional Democrats accusing President Trump of illegally benefiting from his business interests while in office, saying a lower court judge hearing the suit had not adequately considered questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.

The order by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a new sign that Mr. Trump will not be forced to produce evidence in lawsuits claiming that he has violated the anticorruption clauses of the Constitution until the novel legal questions raised in those cases are resolved.

The question of what violates the clauses has never been tested in court. Three lawsuits raising the issue have been bouncing back and forth between district courts and appeals courts, and one of the cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court. The clauses restrict the ability of federal official to accept benefits, or “emoluments,” from foreign or state governments.

The Appeals Court judges rejected a request by the government to intervene in the case on an emergency basis. Instead, they said Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had erred by not allowing the Justice Department to appeal his rulings at an early stage, before evidence had been gathered.

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”