This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/trump-lawsuit-private-businesses.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump Over His Private Businesses Maryland and District of Columbia Sue Trump Over His Businesses
(about 1 hour later)
In a new legal challenge to President Trump, the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Monday claiming that the president’s failure to shed his businesses has undermined public trust and violated constitutional bans against self-dealing.In a new legal challenge to President Trump, the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Monday claiming that the president’s failure to shed his businesses has undermined public trust and violated constitutional bans against self-dealing.
The complaint, filed in a Maryland federal court, makes many of the same arguments in a lawsuit filed this year by a Washington watchdog organization in a New York federal court. But some legal experts said the new suit may progress further because the plaintiffs were government entities, which could have stronger standing to sue the president. The complaint, filed in a Maryland federal court, makes many of the same arguments as a lawsuit filed this year by a Washington watchdog organization in a New York federal court. But some legal experts said the new suit may progress further because the plaintiffs were government entities, which could have stronger standing to sue the president.
It is part of a broader effort by the president’s critics to force him to defend his continued ownership of his business empire. Some congressional Democrats are expected to file a third lawsuit arguing the president’s behavior is also unconstitutional as early as this week. It is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump’s critics to force him to defend his continued ownership of his business empire. Some congressional Democrats are expected to file a third suit as early as this week arguing that his behavior is also unconstitutional.
The Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign governments. It also prohibits the president from accepting economic benefits or emoluments from the federal or state governments, other than his salary. But in 230 years, no court has interpreted what exactly constitutes an emolument.The Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign governments. It also prohibits the president from accepting economic benefits or emoluments from the federal or state governments, other than his salary. But in 230 years, no court has interpreted what exactly constitutes an emolument.
Brian E. Frosh, the Maryland attorney general, said if the lawsuit progressed to the discovery phase, he and Karl Racine, the attorney general for the District of Columbia, would seek to obtain the president’s tax returns to gauge the extent of his business dealings. “It is unprecedented that the American people must question day after day whether decisions are made and actions are taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump,” he said. “The president’s conflicts of interest threaten our democracy.” Brian E. Frosh, the Maryland attorney general, said if the lawsuit progressed to the discovery phase, he and Karl Racine, the attorney general for the District of Columbia, would seek to obtain the president’s tax returns to gauge the extent of his business dealings.
The Justice Department had no immediate response. But in a brief filed last week in response to the New York case, the department argued that the earlier lawsuit should be dismissed because the emoluments clauses were never intended to prohibit a president from owning a business while in office. Even if the president had violated those prohibitions, the department’s lawyers contended, it is up to Congress, not a federal judge, to act. They also argued that the plaintiffs had shown no financial harm. “It is unprecedented that the American people must question day after day whether decisions are made and actions are taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump,” he said. “The president’s conflicts of interest threaten our democracy.”
The Justice Department had no immediate response. But in a brief filed last week in response to the New York case, the department argued that the earlier suit should be dismissed because the emoluments clauses were never intended to prohibit a president from owning a business while in office. Even if the president had violated those prohibitions, the department’s lawyers contended, it is up to Congress, not a federal judge, to act. They also argued that the plaintiffs had shown no financial harm.
In a statement, the Republican National Committee called the new lawsuit “absurd.” Lindsay Jancek, a spokeswoman, said, “The actions by the attorneys general represent the kind of partisan grandstanding voters across the country have come to despise.”In a statement, the Republican National Committee called the new lawsuit “absurd.” Lindsay Jancek, a spokeswoman, said, “The actions by the attorneys general represent the kind of partisan grandstanding voters across the country have come to despise.”
Monday’s complaint claims that businesses owned by Mr. Trump divert customers away from businesses that the District of Columbia and Maryland either own, license or tax, harming those governments financially. For example, it contends, the Trump International Hotel in Washington competes with facilities owned or operated by the city’s government, including the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, its armory and its Carnegie Library. It also competes with a government-owned conference center in Bethesda, Md., and a resort in Prince George’s County, Md., that generates tax revenue for the state, the suit claims.Monday’s complaint claims that businesses owned by Mr. Trump divert customers away from businesses that the District of Columbia and Maryland either own, license or tax, harming those governments financially. For example, it contends, the Trump International Hotel in Washington competes with facilities owned or operated by the city’s government, including the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, its armory and its Carnegie Library. It also competes with a government-owned conference center in Bethesda, Md., and a resort in Prince George’s County, Md., that generates tax revenue for the state, the suit claims.
Mr. Racine told reporters on Monday that just as states intervened to challenge Mr. Trump’s efforts to limit travel from predominantly Muslim countries, he hoped to force the court to step in and evaluate Mr. Trump’s business entanglements.Mr. Racine told reporters on Monday that just as states intervened to challenge Mr. Trump’s efforts to limit travel from predominantly Muslim countries, he hoped to force the court to step in and evaluate Mr. Trump’s business entanglements.
“Congress has given the president a total pass,” he said. “State attorney generals are serving as a necessary check and balance in the Trump era where others failed.”“Congress has given the president a total pass,” he said. “State attorney generals are serving as a necessary check and balance in the Trump era where others failed.”
The suit also claims that the president has used his position to help his businesses. His visits to the Trump hotel in the renovated Old Post Office have raised the business’s profile, the suit claims, and put competitors at a disadvantage. Although Mr. Trump’s businesses pay taxes, it states that over all, his business interests threaten revenue on which Maryland and the District of Columbia depend. The suit also claims that the president has used his position to help his businesses. His visits to the Trump hotel have raised the business’s profile, the suit claims, and put competitors at a disadvantage. Although Mr. Trump’s businesses pay taxes, it states that over all, his business interests threaten revenue on which Maryland and the District of Columbia depend.
Moreover, the suit claims, the president’s business dealings create an “intolerable dilemma” for governments like Maryland and the District of Columbia. If they refuse requests from the Trump Organization for concessions because they are too costly or against the public interest, the company could turn to states more willing to grant favors.Moreover, the suit claims, the president’s business dealings create an “intolerable dilemma” for governments like Maryland and the District of Columbia. If they refuse requests from the Trump Organization for concessions because they are too costly or against the public interest, the company could turn to states more willing to grant favors.
The Justice Department argues the emoluments clauses should be narrowly construed to prohibit the president from accepting gifts or payments in his official capacity. It does not extend to ordinary commercial arms-length transactions like hotel stays, the department contends. Mr. Trump’s defenders claim he has taken every reasonable step to distance himself from the Trump Organization, the family company now run by his adult sons.The Justice Department argues the emoluments clauses should be narrowly construed to prohibit the president from accepting gifts or payments in his official capacity. It does not extend to ordinary commercial arms-length transactions like hotel stays, the department contends. Mr. Trump’s defenders claim he has taken every reasonable step to distance himself from the Trump Organization, the family company now run by his adult sons.
Zachary Clopton, a law professor at Cornell University, said Monday’s lawsuit may be more serious than the New York complaint because Maryland is legally considered a “coequal sovereign” with the president. That makes it a stronger opponent in the constitutional argument over emoluments, he said. Zachary Clopton, a law professor at Cornell University, said Monday’s lawsuit may be more serious than the New York complaint because Maryland is legally considered a “coequal sovereign” with the president and so is a stronger opponent.
The lawsuit suggests Maryland has a special standing to sue because the anticorruption prohibitions written into the Constitution helped induce Maryland to support the union. Andy S. Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor who has criticized the merits of the New York case, said he remained skeptical of the legal arguments in both lawsuits. But he said: “All they really need is for a court to say Donald Trump needs to release his records to you. That would be one heck of a victory for them.”
The complaint “represents an important new front in the emoluments war,” said Norman Eisen, chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose lawyers are co-counsel in the case. The group is also the original plaintiff in the New York lawsuit. The attorneys general’s complaint “represents an important new front in the emoluments war,” said Norman Eisen, chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose lawyers are outside in the case. The group is also the original plaintiff in the New York lawsuit.