DC Circuit Rejects Wine Bar's Trump Lawsuit, But Ducks Ruling on 'Presidential Immunity' Claims
The judges rejected Cork Wine Bar's lawsuit alleging Trump is violating a local fair competition rule through ownership of his D.C. hotel while he's serving as president.
February 28, 2020 at 11:31 AM
5 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rejected a lawsuit from a restaurant challenging President Donald Trump's ownership of his Washington, D.C., hotel under a local competition rule.
Cork Wine Bar initially sued Trump in D.C. Superior Court, arguing the president's ownership of his hotel while he was in office violated the city's fair competition rule because consumers may go to the property to try and curry favor with the Trump administration.
Trump's lawyers with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius had the case moved to D.C. federal court, citing Trump's status as a federal officer. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case in November 2018, finding the restaurant failed to state a claim against the president.
In Friday's ruling, the three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit—Judges Merrick Garland, Thomas Griffith and Stephen Williams—backed Leon's opinion, finding the restaurant "makes no meaningful attempt to square its unfair-competition claim with District law."
But in doing so, the judges avoided making concrete rulings on Trump's claims of presidential immunity, or what kinds of local regulations he should be subject to while holding office.
"Given Cork's failure to cite any contrary precedent, we see no reason to conclude that District common law recognizes anything like Cork's unfair-competition claim," Griffith wrote in the court's opinion. He pointed to Cork attorney Alan Morrison's concession during oral arguments that there are no other cases that rely on a similar claim of unfair competition.
"The gravamen of Cork's complaint is that so long as the President retains a stake in the Hotel, Cork cannot fairly compete, because of the 'perception' that Hotel patrons will receive favorable treatment from the Trump Administration," Griffith wrote. "Although Cork suggests in passing that President Trump and the Hotel are 'impair[ing]' competition and 'interfer[ing] with access' to its business, its claim bears little resemblance to the examples listed in Ray and B & W Management, and Cork cites no case showing that the allegations here fall into those categories of unfair competition."
Cork Wine Bar was represented by a team of attorneys, including national security lawyers Bradley Moss and Mark Zaid. Morrison, a George Washington University law professor, argued the case before the D.C. Circuit in November.
The restaurant's legal team also argued the case was improperly moved to federal court in the first place, asking it be remanded to the local court instead.
But the judges sided with Trump's argument that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause means the District "may not impose legal conditions on the lawful performance of his presidential duties," finding that if a state court embraced Cork's argument, it "might impede federal officers."
"The Supremacy Clause might bar a state-law tort claim that applies only to federal officers or holds that ordinarily acceptable behavior—here, running a business—triggers liability when undertaken by a federal officer," Griffith wrote.
However, the panel notably declined to rule on the "merits" of Trump's argument, only finding it "colorable." And it entirely avoided ruling on Trump's claim of presidential immunity from such legal challenges.
In a statement, the wine bar's attorneys acknowledged that its "legal challenge may be concluded," but maintained that "the operation of a for-profit hotel by an elected leader is plainly the type of corruption that the rule of law should prevent."
"President Trump has intentionally financially profited from serving as the elected leader of our country for his own self interests. This decision does not negate that such actions are ethically unacceptable," the statement reads.
Friday's ruling is the latest blow to those seeking to use the courts to hold Trump to account for profiting from private properties while holding office. The D.C. Circuit earlier this month also rejected Democrats' lawsuit alleging Trump was violating the Constitution's Emoluments Clause through his D.C. hotel.
A similar lawsuit brought forward by the attorneys general for D.C. and Maryland is currently awaiting an en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Read more:
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 All‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Justices Consider Scope of Corporate Remedies for Trademark Infringement
Albertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Examining New York Court Decisions on Website Accessibility Claims
- 2What to Expect in the Securities Enforcement Space in 2025
- 3Against All Odds—How to Try, and Win, High-Leverage Cases
- 4Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
- 5Class Gifts and NY’s 'Adoption Out' Statute: Guidance for NY Fiduciaries on Minimizing Litigation Risks
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