Dist. of Columbia v. Trump
315 F.Supp.3d 875 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'emolument' in the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution broadly covers any profit, gain, or advantage of more than de minimis value. This prohibition extends to profits from private commercial transactions with foreign, federal, or state governments, received directly or indirectly by the President, even if services are rendered at fair market value.
Facts:
- Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and maintains a substantial ownership interest in the Trump Organization.
- The Trump Organization owns and operates the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and President Trump directly or indirectly shares in the revenues it generates.
- Since President Trump's election, various foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have patronized the Hotel, with some officials indicating they did so to curry favor with the President.
- President Trump has not sought or received consent from Congress to accept revenues from foreign governments through his businesses.
- At least one U.S. state, Maine, patronized the Hotel when its governor visited Washington D.C. on official business that included discussions with the President.
- The Trump Organization operates the Hotel in a building leased from the federal government's General Services Administration (GSA).
- After President Trump's inauguration, the GSA reversed an earlier interpretation and determined that his continued financial interest in the lease did not violate a clause prohibiting elected officials from benefiting from it.
Procedural Posture:
- The District of Columbia and the State of Maryland sued President Donald J. Trump in his official capacity in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- Plaintiffs alleged that the President's business dealings, particularly through the Trump International Hotel, violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint to state their claims more fully.
- The President filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The court previously issued an opinion holding that the Plaintiffs have legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
- The court now considers the President's Motion to Dismiss on the merits of whether the alleged conduct constitutes a violation of the Emoluments Clauses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'emolument' in the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution encompass profits from private business transactions with foreign, federal, or state governments, even if those transactions are at fair market value?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Messitte
Yes, the term 'emolument' in the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses encompasses profits from private business transactions with governments, and such profits are prohibited. The court found that the text, original public meaning, constitutional purpose, and executive branch precedent all support a broad definition of 'emolument' as any 'profit,' 'gain,' or 'advantage.' The court rejected the President's narrow interpretation that an emolument is limited to a payment for official services, akin to a bribe. The court's reasoning relied on: 1) Textual analysis, noting expansive modifiers like 'any' and 'of any kind whatever' suggest a broad scope; 2) Historical evidence, including founding-era dictionaries and the writings of the Framers, which overwhelmingly defined 'emolument' broadly to include private commercial benefits; 3) Constitutional purpose, which was to create a prophylactic anti-corruption rule to guard against any potential for undue influence by foreign or domestic governments; and 4) Consistent executive branch precedent from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which has long interpreted the clauses broadly. Therefore, the President's receipt of profits from government patronage of his hotel violates the Emoluments Clauses.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark interpretation of the Constitution's long-dormant Emoluments Clauses, applying them for the first time to a modern president's complex private business interests. By defining 'emolument' broadly to include profits from commercial transactions, the court established that these clauses function as robust anti-corruption provisions that are not limited to outright bribery or extra-official salary. This ruling sets a significant precedent that could subject a president's private business dealings with government entities to legal scrutiny and potentially constrain how presidents manage their financial affairs while in office.
Unlock the full brief for Dist. of Columbia v. Trump