Emoluments lawsuit

Judge lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump move ahead

By LORRAINE WOELLERT and STEPHANIE MURRAY

A lawsuit arguing President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution by benefiting from business with foreign governments can proceed, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Maryland ruled Wednesday.

The president's lawyers had sought to dismiss the case, but the motion was denied.

Maryland and the District of Columbia have sued Trump, claiming he violated the Constitution's emoluments clause by personally benefiting from payments made by foreign governments to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. The White House has disputed the allegations and said they are politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte ruled the case can proceed because the plaintiffs made a plausible case that Trump could get an improper financial benefit from his affiliation with the Trump hotel.

“Since the President’s election, a number of foreign governments or their instrumentalities have patronized or have expressed a definite intention to patronize the Hotel, some of which have indicated that they are doing so precisely because of the President's association with it,” Messitte wrote.

At the time of his inauguration, Trump said he would turn over management of the Trump Organization to his older sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. He also said he'd donate all profits earned from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury, though at the time of the lawsuit no such donation had been made.

Spokespeople for the White House and Trump Organization did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

"We are one step closer to stopping President Trump from violating the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions," tweeted Karl Racine, the attorney general for the District of Columbia.

Norm Eisen of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington cheered the judge’s decision in an email to POLITICO and said his organization will continue to “follow the money” in the case. Eisen, in his capacity at CREW, said he works as co-counsel with the attorneys general involved in the lawsuit. CREW had separately filed an emoluments lawsuit that was dismissed last year.

“The decision is enormously important because it acknowledges what we have been saying all along,” Eisen said. “The constitutional meaning of emoluments seems to prohibit a great deal of commercial activity in which the president is engaged. It represents a major leap forward in being able to understand how Trump is profiting off the presidency, including possibly from Russia.”

According to the lawsuit, a number of foreign officials have patronized the Trump Hotel because of its connection to the president. Additionally, the state of Maine patronized the hotel when Gov. Paul LePage visited the capital for discussions with the president, the lawsuit says. Trump has not sought Congress’ consent to accept hotel revenue.

The case will hinge on the legal interpretation of the emoluments clause and whether it applies to the president, Messitte wrote in the opinion made public Wednesday.