A rather surprising decision in a DC circuit court today, that Washington DC and Maryland may continue with the suit filed against Trump under the Emoluments Clause. It really seemed unlikely this would be allowed to continue because it wasn’t certain that the State and District would be able to show they were being injured financially. The judge agreed that since both the State and District have a financial interest in their convention centers, that the business Trump is doing at his DC hotel, Trump International Hotel, could conceivably injure them.
The Judge, Peter Messitte, is limiting the scope of the suit to only this geographical area. This is a pretty big deal.
“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the President is violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution by reason of his involvement with and receipt of benefits from the Trump International Hotel and its appurtenances in Washington, D.C. as well as the operations of the Trump Organization with respect to the same. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their standing to challenge those purported violations because they have shown injury-in-fact, fairly traceable to the President’s acts, and that the injury is likely redressable by the Court.”
Even though this is limited in scope…man this opens a brand new can of worms for Donny. Discovery would open the books on Trump. Not to mention, this decision may give birth to similar suits in both NY and Florida.
“Violations of the emoluments clauses are a difficult case to prove because there is little precedent, the definitions are poorly understood, and it is not easy to prove that anybody has been done wrong by any alleged violations.
At the least, Maryland and Washington, DC, have now cleared one of those hurdles.”
It is also worth noting:
“Indeed, the language of the emoluments clause is cited in only three Supreme Court cases, none of which address the clause itself, according to research conducted by Bloomberg BNA. Those cases are: Kepner v. United States , 195 U.S. 100 (1904), Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253 (1967) and Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n , 558 U.S. 310 (2010).”
This case may set legal precedent.
Who among us did not say when Trump was elected, He’s a complete idiot, he isn’t going to change, he’ll be in court the entire time, and he’ll most likely be impeached.
We all did.