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/2018/03/28/us/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lawsuit Over Trump’s Ties to His Businesses Is Allowed to Advance Lawsuit Over Trump’s Ties to His Businesses Is Allowed to Advance
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by refusing to divorce himself from his businesses cleared a critical hurdle Wednesday when a federal judge in Maryland refused the Justice Department’s plea to dismiss it. The decision could allow the plaintiffs to scrutinize the Trump Organization’s financial records for payments from foreign entities and others possibly seeking to influence the White House. WASHINGTON — A lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by refusing to divorce himself from his businesses cleared a critical hurdle Wednesday when a federal judge in Maryland refused the Justice Department’s plea to dismiss it.
In a 47-page order, Judge Peter J. Messitte said he refused to bar the lawsuit filed last year by the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, rejecting claims that the two jurisdictions had not sufficiently alleged injuries. The suit alleges that Mr. Trump has violated constitutional anti-corruption clauses intended to limit government-bestowed benefits to the president, or emoluments, other than salary. In a 47-page opinion, Judge Peter J. Messitte rejected the federal government’s claims that the plaintiffs had not shown that they had suffered injuries that a court could address.
Although the suit could still be thrown out on other grounds, the judge’s ruling adds to the president’s growing legal troubles. Besides the ongoing criminal inquiry into Russia’s influence over the presidential election, an actress in pornographic films, a former Playboy model and a onetime contestant on “The Apprentice” have filed civil lawsuits over their alleged relationships with Mr. Trump before he became president. The suit, filed by Washington, D.C., and the State of Maryland, accuses Mr. Trump of violating constitutional anticorruption clauses intended to limit his receipt of government-bestowed benefits, or emoluments. The local jurisdictions claim that in hopes of currying presidential favor, government officials are patronizing Trump-owned properties instead of hotels or convention centers that the District of Columbia or Maryland own or have some financial interest in.
The emoluments case raises basic questions that have never been litigated. It is neither clear what constitutes an illegal benefit to the president or whether any legal remedy exists if the president accepts one. During a January court hearing, Judge Messitte seemed to acknowledge that the case would be ultimately decided by a higher court than his. Although the case could still be thrown out on other grounds, the judge’s ruling adds to the president’s growing legal troubles.
For the plaintiffs, his ruling is an important first step in their quest to show that Mr. Trump crossed a constitutional line. In his opinion, the judge said they had legal standing “to challenge the actions of the president with respect to the Trump International Hotel and its appurtenances in Washington, D.C., as well as the Trump Organization with respect to them.” Besides the continuing criminal inquiry into Russia’s influence over the presidential election, an actress in pornographic films, a former Playboy model and a onetime contestant on “The Apprentice” have filed civil lawsuits over their alleged relationships with Mr. Trump before he became president.
Some of the president’s critics are hopeful that the judge will eventually grant his legal opponents enough leeway to access a range of Mr. Trump’s business records, possibly including his tax returns, which he has not released. The emoluments case raises basic questions that have never been litigated. Even the specific definition of an emolument is unclear. During a January court hearing, Judge Messitte seemed to acknowledge that the case would ultimately be decided by a higher court than his.
The plaintiffs claim that in hopes of currying presidential favor, government officials are patronizing Trump-owned properties instead of hotels or convention centers in which the District of Columbia or Maryland has a financial interest. Those payments, they contend, constitute illegal benefits that violate both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the Constitution. Although the president’s critics are hoping that the judge will allow the plaintiffs to scrutinize the Trump Organization’s financial records, perhaps even including the president’s tax returns, it was not clear from Wednesday’s opinion whether the judge would permit such discovery. The next stage of the case is expected to involve arguments about what constitutes an emolument.
Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that there was no proof that Washington or Maryland facilities are losing customers to Mr. Trump’s properties. Even if they are, they contend, that does not amount to a constitutional violation by the president. Nonetheless, for the plaintiffs, the ruling that they have legal standing to challenge the president’s actions is an important first step in their quest to show that Mr. Trump crossed a constitutional line. “We look forward now to proceeding to address the constitutional issues and demonstrate that the emoluments clauses forbid the things of value that are flowing into the president’s pockets from governments foreign and domestic,” said Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who is serving as a co-counsel in the case.
Last year, department lawyers persuaded a federal judge in Manhattan to throw out a lawsuit, filed by different plaintiffs, that alleged similar violations. The plaintiffs in that case have appealed. The judge limited the scope of the suit to the Trump International Hotel, down the street from the White House, and businesses related to it that are owned by the Trump Organization. The president’s other business interests — such as the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida — are not at issue, he found, because they have no clear effect on the plaintiffs.
In oral arguments, Judge Messitte dismissed that opinion, saying it seemed to lack rigorous analysis. Judge Messitte rejected the Justice Department’s argument that it is up to Congress, not a court, to decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses. He noted that the domestic emoluments clause, which restricts economic benefits to the president from government entities in the United States, makes no mention of Congress. “Congress has nary a say about it,” he wrote.
While the constitution does state that Congress can allow the president to accept gifts from foreign governments, he wrote, that does not rule out a lawsuit claiming violations. “If that were so, the Supreme Court would not have decided other cases involving constitutional provisions containing similar consent-of-Congress provisions,” he wrote.
His opinion on that question contradicted that of a federal judge in Manhattan, who last year threw out a lawsuit in which different plaintiffs claimed similar violations. During oral arguments, Judge Messitte was dismissive of that judge’s opinion, saying it seemed to lack rigorous analysis. He noted in his opinion that states are not ordinary litigants but have enhanced standing in cases involving the federal government. The plaintiffs in the New York case were nongovernmental.
Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that there was no proof that Washington or Maryland properties were losing customers to Mr. Trump’s properties. Even if they are, they contended, that does not amount to a constitutional violation by the president.
But Judge Messitte found that the local governments “have alleged sufficient facts to show that the president’s ownership in the hotel has had and almost certainly will continue to have an unlawful effect on competition.”
He noted that some foreign government officials had stated publicly that they chose to patronize the Trump International Hotel because the president’s family owns it, and that some foreign governments had canceled reservations at other hotels and transferred their business to the president’s.
He also noted that the governor of Maine, Paul LePage, stayed at the Trump International Hotel last year shortly before he appeared at a news conference at which Mr. Trump signed an executive order that could affect a park and national monument in his state. That suggests that officials from Maryland and Washington might feel “obliged, i.e., coerced, to patronize the hotel in order to help them obtain federal favors,” the judge wrote.