Court sparring over Trump profiting from the presidency
A divided federal appeals court spent more than three hours Thursday sparring over whether Donald Trump is illegally profiting from the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel.
A divided federal appeals court spent more than three hours Thursday sparring over whether Donald Trump is illegally profiting from the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel.
The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia asked 15 judges on the fourth US circuit court of appeals to reconsider a ruling by a three-judge panel directing a federal judge in Maryland to dismiss their lawsuit against the president, the Associated Press writes.
The two jurisdictions allege Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the constitution by accepting profits through foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International hotel, which sits rather majestically in a historic building on Pennsylvania
Avenue and has become the “see and be seen” venue for Trump allies in the capital.
Maryland’s Attorney general, Brian Frosh, and district attorney general, Karl Racine, have argued that hotels in their jurisdictions suffer “competitive injury” because
Maryland’s Attorney general, Brian Frosh, and district attorney general, Karl Racine, have argued that hotels in their jurisdictions suffer “competitive injury” because
officials hoping to curry favor with the president are more likely to stay at his hotel.
A three-judge panel of the fourth circuit ruled in July that the two jurisdictions lack standing to pursue their claims against the president and granted a rare writ of
A three-judge panel of the fourth circuit ruled in July that the two jurisdictions lack standing to pursue their claims against the president and granted a rare writ of
mandamus, directing US district court Judge Peter Messitte to throw out the lawsuit.
The three judges on the panel who ruled in Trump’s favor were all nominated by Republican presidents. But on Thursday, in arguments before the full court, a mix of
The three judges on the panel who ruled in Trump’s favor were all nominated by Republican presidents. But on Thursday, in arguments before the full court, a mix of
15 judges nominated by both Democrats and Republicans got into a spirited debate about Trump’s business interests and whether the panel should have taken the unusual step of overturning Messitte’s ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan said the three-judge panel was within its authority to issue its ruling: “We think it is clear and indisputable that you cannot sue the president of the United States in his official capacity without at a minimum having an express
statement authorizing such a suit by Congress.”
Judge James Wynn Jr grilled Mooppan about whether he was arguing that the judiciary has no remedy when a president violates the emoluments clause and that the president is above the law. Mooppan said Messitte
Judge James Wynn Jr grilled Mooppan about whether he was arguing that the judiciary has no remedy when a president violates the emoluments clause and that the president is above the law. Mooppan said Messitte
committed “multiple, fundamental errors” in refusing to dismiss the suit.
Judge J Harvey Wilkinson III defended Trump’s arguments during the hearing, saying the court cannot treat the case as if it’s an “ordinary, run-of-the-mill case”.
Judge J Harvey Wilkinson III defended Trump’s arguments during the hearing, saying the court cannot treat the case as if it’s an “ordinary, run-of-the-mill case”.
He said the judiciary is “seeking to assert over the presidency of the United States authority that has never been asserted or claimed before”.
In October, Trump’s company said it is exploring the sale of the hotel.
In October, Trump’s company said it is exploring the sale of the hotel.
