The rarely tested language at issue in the case bars U.S. officials from accepting payments, benefits or other “emoluments” from foreign governments without consent from Congress. The provisions once appeared to be a prime opportunity for Trump’s critics to force the president to change his business tactics or at least get him to disclose more about his company.
Instead the congressional case has been tossed, and a second case brought by the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland would be withdrawn if Trump sells the lease for his hotel in downtown Washington, which his company is working on.
Trump celebrated the ruling in a tweet: “Another win just in. Nervous Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress sued me, thrown out. This one unanimous, in the D.C. Circuit. Witch Hunt!”
Justice Department lawyers, defending the president, said the ban refers narrowly to compensation in exchange for official action or in an employment-type relationship — and does not broadly include any profit, gain or advantage.
Spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Friday the department is “very pleased” with the outcome.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who led efforts to bring the lawsuit, said in a joint statement that the ruling was not a decision on the merits and lawmakers will continue to review their options.
“While I am disappointed in the outcome of today’s decision, a technical dismissal in no way condones President Trump’s continuing violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution,” Nadler said in the statement.
Lawmakers could ask the full court to rehear the case or seek review from the Supreme Court, but that seems less likely because the D.C. Circuit decision was unanimous. Tatel was tapped by Bill Clinton, Griffith by George W. Bush, and Henderson by George H.W. Bush.
The ruling did not address the underlying merits of the challenge or how to define an “emolument,” but rather who has the right to sue.
The 12-page opinion pointed to past Supreme Court decisions, which the judges said bar individual lawmakers from bringing lawsuits on behalf of the entire body in part because Congress acts through majority votes in the House and Senate.
“Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members — 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President’s acceptance of foreign emoluments,” the court ruled.
But Fordham University law professor Jed Shugerman, who assisted the plaintiffs, said Democrats could still boost their case by adding to the lawsuit the names of lawmakers who have joined the House since it was filed in 2017.
“It seems to have been a blind spot of the organizers not to make that effort,” he said. Ultimately, however, he said he found the judges’ decision “extremely disappointing,” largely because they appeared to argue that the Constitution was not likely to effectively rein in corruption.
After oral argument in December, Blumenthal rejected the idea that such a lawsuit must come from the entire legislature.
“Individual members of Congress simply cannot do their job,” he said, if there is no legal right or standing to sue.
The lawsuit is one of three similar cases pending in appeals courts, one step below the Supreme Court, intended to reveal details about the president’s closely held business interests.
The congressional case extends beyond Trump’s luxury hotel in downtown Washington, which he leases from the federal government and where the governments of Kuwait, Malaysia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and others have paid to hold events or book rooms.
The congressional case reached the D.C. appeals court after Judge Emmet G. Sullivan cleared the way for lawmakers to issue 37 subpoenas seeking financial information, interviews and other records, including ones related to Trump Tower and his Mar-a-Lago Club in South Florida.
But that request went on hold after the appeals court stepped in midstream and intervened — at Trump’s request and with Sullivan’s consent — to consider the untested separation-of-powers issues.