Breaking: SDNY Grants Government's Motion to Dismiss in CREW v. Trump - "Lack of standing." scribd.com/document/36769… #Emoluments @SethBTillman 
2/ The court indirectly addressed the argument advanced by @SethBTillman and me. Rather than accepting Plaintiffs' position that Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to *all* federal officials, Judge Daniels said it applies to "certain" officials.
3/ Though I am perplexed by Footnote 2. Judge Daniels wrote "Defendant has conceded that he is subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause." The government said the *exact* opposite "the government has not conceded that the President is subject to the FEC." DOJ should correct this.
4/ The Court also repeats the claim that Eric Goode "owns" the Maritime, Bowery, Ludlow, and Jane Hotels. Goode admitted to @NRO @theodorekupfer that he is only a partial owner. nationalreview.com/article/453603…
5/ Crux of competitor standing analysis: "It is wholly speculative whether the Hospitality Plaintiffs' loss of business is fairly traceable to Defendant's 'incentives' or instead results from government officials' independent desire to patronize Defendant's businesses"
6/ Further, court finds "it is entirely 'speculative,' what effect, if any, an injunction would have on the competition Plaintiffs claim they face" and Emoluments Clauses "do not prohibit Defendant's businesses from competing directly with the Hospitality Plaintiffs."
7/ The court also finds that protection from competition not within Zone of Interest of Emoluments Clauses (Judge Daniels alluded to this point during oral arguments)
8/ Court finds"@CREWcrew fails to allege either that D's actions have impeded its ability to perform a particular mission-related activity or that it was forced to expend resources to counteract and remedy the adverse consequences or harmful effects of Defendant's conduct"
9/ "If @CREWcrew could satisfy the standing requirement on this basis alone, it is difficult to see how any organization that claims it has directed resources to one project rather than another would not automatically have standing to sue" See also: joshblackman.com/blog/2017/01/2…
10/ "@CREWcrew alleges that it was injured by having to divert resources to investigate and counteract Defendant's constitutional violations. But nearly all of the resources it expended were either in anticipation or direct furtherance of this litigation."
11/ Regarding @CREWcrew "self-inflicted injury," CREW "sought out and voluntarily undertook efforts to investigate...and ultimately bring suit over Defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, raising the prospect of manufactured standing, about which courts are justifiably concerned"
12/ Court finds that FEC is "a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" and thus "Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant's conduct unlawfully infringes on that power"
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" and thus "Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant's conduct unlawfully infringes on that power"
13/ Judge Daniels makes important prudential point. There is nothing even close to a "constitutional impasse" (Goldwater v. Carter) between POTUS and Congress concerning Foreign Emoluments. This case "has yet to mature," and is not ripe. "Congress is not a potted plant."
14/ Next stop in the Emoluments litigation will be 5.5 hours of oral argument in the District of Maryland on January 25. More developments on that case coming soon...
15/ One additional note on CREW v. Trump. The primary purpose of this lawsuit was always to seek discovery, and in particular get POTUS tax returns. Plaintiffs even dedicated time at oral args to offering a discovery plan. (A bit premature in hindsight).
16/ Even if the case is reversed on appeal (doubtful) CREW's ability to seek discovery will be significantly delayed.
