DC Circuit Panel Skeptical of Lawyer Suing Trump Over His DC Hotel
Judges Merrick Garland, Thomas Griffith and Stephen Williams were skeptical of arguments brought forward by attorneys representing Cork Wine Bar.
November 22, 2019 at 01:35 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicated it's unlikely to save an unfair competition lawsuit targeting President Donald Trump and his Washington, D.C., hotel.
Judges Merrick Garland, Thomas Griffith and Stephen Williams were skeptical of arguments brought forward by George Washington University Law School professor Alan Morrison on behalf of the owners of D.C. restaurant Cork Wine Bar, who wants the dismissed case sent back to a local D.C. trial court. The restaurant owners claim Trump and his hotel are violating a local fair competition law, since people may choose the president's properties in order to curry favor with Trump and his administration.
The lawsuit was initially filed in March 2017 in D.C. Superior Court before being moved to federal court at the request of Trump's attorneys at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia last year dismissed the complaint, finding that Cork Wine Bar had not shown specific enough claims of harm stemming from Trump's hotel.
Morrison on Friday urged the judges to send the case back down to D.C. Superior Court, where he argued it belongs. If not, he said the panel should certify the claims and allow the case to proceed.
He faced a barrage of questions from all three judges over exactly how the case could be sent back to the Superior Court. They noted the case was transferred to the district court under a statute that allows federal officers to face claims against them in federal court.
Morrison argued that because the president failed to divest from his businesses before taking office, and because the suit pertained to Trump's actions only before he was sworn in, the case doesn't touch on Trump's official capacity as president.
"The president has to obey general laws, like postal drivers have to obey speed limits," Morrison said. "This does not infringe on the power of the president."
But the judges weren't buying it. "You don't have a claim if he's not the president of the United States," Griffith said to Morrison.
And Garland questioned why no case similar to the one from Cork Wine Bar had ever been filed before. He noted that a number of lawyers are serving in the Virginia and Maryland state assemblies, as well as elected officials Michael Bloomberg and then-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper having businesses while they were in office, but that they didn't face legal challenges over those holdings.
Morrison said the Cork Wine Bar case is unique, alleging that promotional materials for the Trump Hotel include the implicit promise that utilizing the property will lead to access to Trump. But the judges then questioned why Trump was being sued in this case at all.
Morgan Lewis partner Michael Kenneally faced only three questions from the panel. He was generally allowed to argue, uninterrupted, that the complaint was properly dismissed and should not be sent down to Superior Court.
Kenneally argued that parts of the initial complaint filed against Trump and the hotel invoked Trump's official capacity as president, and therefore it has to be adjudicated in federal court.
And he pointed to prior cases that he claimed showed the D.C. Circuit could not certify the claims.
Speaking after the arguments, Morrison indicated that he didn't believe the argument went well, as Kenneally was asked far fewer questions. But he said that it could show that Congress may have to step in and pass a federal law addressing the unfair competition claims.
Friday's arguments were held amid a resurgence of claims against the president over his alleged violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit in early December will rule on whether a lawsuit from more than 200 Democratic members of Congress over the anti-corruption clause can advance.
And days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will hear en banc arguments in Maryland and D.C.'s lawsuit that also alleges Trump is violating the emoluments clause.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also recently revived a lawsuit brought forward by Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington alleging that Trump is violating the clause.
And the D.C. Circuit also heard arguments last month over whether Democrats on the House Oversight Committee could obtain documents from the General Services Administration about Trump's D.C. hotel. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee subpoenaed the GSA last month for documents on the hotel, including the lease.
Eric Trump told The Wall Street Journal last month that the Trump Organization is now weighing whether it should sell off the lease for the Trump property, citing the high level of scrutiny they've faced while his father is in office.
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
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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