Appeals court dismisses Emoluments Clause lawsuit in win for Trump

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by Maryland and the District of Columbia alleging that President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, finding that they did not have the standing to sue the president.

{mosads}In the opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote that the claims that government officials are staying at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel in order to benefit the president and not due to other factors “requires speculation” and are “simply too attenuated.”

“Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” Niemeyer, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, wrote.

“And, even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel,” he continued. “After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family.”

Maryland and D.C. filed the lawsuit two years ago, alleging that Trump has violated both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the Constitution by continuing to profit from his ownership of the Trump International Hotel while in office.

A district court in Maryland originally ruled in their favor, finding that the local governments had standing to file the complaints, as the president’s hotel may draw guests away from government-owned properties.

But Wednesday’s ruling found that the lower court did not fully consider the “novel” legal questions raised by such a lawsuit.

“To allow such a suit to go forward in the district court without a resolution of the controlling issues by a court of appeals could result in an unnecessary intrusion into the duties and affairs of a sitting President,” Niemeyer wrote.

— This report was updated at 11:44 a.m.