4th Circuit Orders Dismissal of 'Emoluments' Claims Against Trump
A panel of Fourth Circuit judges, ruling for Trump, said the "prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts."
July 10, 2019 at 11:07 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of claims alleging President Donald Trump's continued interest in his private business entities is violating the U.S. Constitution's check against foreign and domestic influence of the White House.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have standing to pursue claims that Trump is violating the Constitution's emoluments clause. The court, siding with Trump, ordered a Maryland trial judge to dismiss the case with prejudice, a move that forecloses the ability of the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
The novel ruling was the first—but will not be the last—to confront emoluments-clause claims against the president. Trump's business empire, in which he continues to have an interest, is the centerpiece of several emoluments cases and related litigation about the president's financial tax returns and other financial information. Up until the emoluments cases against Trump, “no court has ever entertained a claim to enforce them,” the Fourth Circuit panel noted.
“The District and Maryland's interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote for the unanimous panel.
Niemeyer heard the case with Judges Dennis Shedd and A. Marvin Quattlebaum, who was appointed to the bench by Trump. The judges, each joining the bench under a Republican president, expressed skepticism at oral argument in March over the viability of the emoluments claims.
The plaintiffs could ask the full bench of Fourth Circuit judges to review the panel decision, or the challengers could go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices haven't yet weighed the scope of the emoluments clause in Trump-related litigation.
The Fourth Circuit's ruling doesn't end Trump's potential exposure to the emoluments act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is weighing a separate challenge in a case brought by more than 200 Democratic lawmakers. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has rejected Trump's push to stop the claims.
Trump filed his appeal in that case this week, and he has asked for a ruling by July 22, seven days before various Trump entities are required to respond to congressional subpoenas that were issued in the litigation.
The D.C. Circuit, separately, is set to hear arguments on Friday from Trump's lawyers in a congressional subpoena dispute. A federal trial judge recently upheld a House subpoena seeking information from Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars USA. Trump's lawyers at Consovoy McCarthy argue the subpoena is overbroad and outside the committee's authority.
House lawyers are also suing in Washington's federal trial court to force the IRS and U.S. Treasury Department to disclose, via subpoena, several years' of Trump's tax returns. Federal law requires the IRS to release to the House, on request, the tax returns of any private citizen.
The tax returns case is pending before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee to the trial bench.
The Fourth Circuit's ruling is posted below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250