Maryland, DC AGs Clear Initial Hurdle in Trump Emoluments Lawsuit
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the attorneys general have standing to bring their lawsuit claiming the president is in violation of the Constitution's emoluments clauses.
March 28, 2018 at 02:01 PM
5 minute read
The attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia are the first plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss in a so-called “emoluments” lawsuit, which alleges that President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by maintaining ownership of his vast business empire while in office.
U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte of the District of Maryland on Wednesday denied, in part, the government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, ruling the AGs have standing to bring their lawsuit. The suit claims Trump is violating the Constitution's foreign and domestic emoluments clauses because he accepts “gifts” from foreign and domestic governments via payments to his private businesses.
Similar cases have been filed in Washington, D.C., by Democratic lawmakers, as well as by a nonprofit group and some individuals in New York. A federal judge tossed the lawsuit in New York last year for lack of standing.
In his opinion Wednesday, Messitte granted the government's motion to dismiss with respect to the president's business operations outside the District of Columbia. But, the judge said both D.C. and Maryland could show their alleged injuries are “fairly traceable” to Trump's actions with respect to his hotel in Washington, D.C.
“It can hardly be gainsaid that a large number of Maryland and District of Columbia residents are being affected and will continue to be affected when foreign and state governments choose to stay, host events, or dine at the hotel rather than at comparable Maryland or District of Columbia establishments, in whole or in substantial part simply because of the president's association with it,” Messite wrote. “The court concludes that plaintiffs are not attempting to 'stand in the shoes' of a limited number of businesses as the president suggests … they are, quite plausibly, trying to protect a large segment of their commercial residents and hospitality industry employees from economic harm.”
Messite said he would hold off on ruling on other arguments from the government, and hold a hearing as to the meaning of the emoluments clauses, and “whether plaintiffs have otherwise stated claims under the clauses.”
There is little case law on the emoluments clauses, as they have rarely been used in litigation. The AGs mainly argue that governments like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have spent thousands of dollars at Trump's Washington, D.C., hotel to curry favor with the president. That has diverted business from other Washington, D.C., hotels. The AGs also said state governments, like Maine's, have patronized the hotel, which has also sought to market itself specifically to diplomats.
Maryland and D.C. claimed various types of injuries from the alleged violations, such as being placed in an “intolerable dilemma” in which they must either grant special favors to the Trump Organization or risk losing out to other states that do so. Both D.C. and Maryland own properties that may compete with the Trump hotels, and claimed they could lose money as a result.
Messitte wrote that though the government argued the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were speculative, it “cannot be denied” that the Trump Organization has in fact received tax breaks from both D.C. and Mississippi. He also noted that Maine Gov. Paul LePage, while in Washington last year, stayed at the Trump International Hotel and, not long after, Trump signed an executive order regarding national monuments that could be favorable to LePage.
“Leaving aside how Maine's citizens may have felt about the propriety of their governor living large at the hotel while on official business in Washington, the fact that states other than Maryland or the District of Columbia (while, not a state) might patronize the hotel while on official business in Washington rather clearly suggests that Maryland and the District of Columbia may very well feel themselves obliged, i.e., coerced, to patronize the hotel in order to help them obtain federal favors,” Messitte wrote.
Messitte also said that with respect to the competition arguments, U.S. Supreme Court precedent showed plaintiffs with economic interests have standing to sue “to prevent a direct competitor from receiving an illegal market benefit leading to an unlawful increase in competition.”
The AGs originally filed the case against Trump in his official capacity as president, but, amended it following a motions hearing to include claims against Trump in his individual capacity, since receiving money from his businesses is not part of his “official duties” as president. Messitte said it “remains to be seen” which capacity will work for the case, but that the issue would not block the case for now.
“But looking beyond the simple denomination of his status at this point, it is clear that the gist of the amended complaint is that the president's purported receipt of emoluments, as previously defined, has nothing at all to do with his 'official duties,'” Messitte wrote. “As the president himself concedes, plaintiffs are challenging the president's acceptance of money taken through private transactions—something that has 'nothing to do with the president's service … as president.'”
Read the decision:
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute read'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250