Trump's 'Character and Fitness' Is Questioned in Hotel Liquor-License Case
"The board correctly rejected Trump's attempt to silence the public and to be held above the law," said a lawyer for the residents who are opposing the renewal of the license at Trump's hotel in downtown D.C.
June 14, 2019 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers representing President Donald Trump's hotel in downtown Washington this week lost their bid to dismiss claims from a group of District of Columbia residents, including a retired federal judge, that Trump's alleged poor character and fitness should bar the renewal of the venue's city liquor license.
The hotel's lawyers had argued the D.C. residents should not be allowed to question the character of Trump as only one of the names appearing on the alcohol license on his hotel just blocks from the White House. Five members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board rejected the argument in an order dated June 12.
“The board has consistently held that 'the mere creation of a corporate entity does not shield the individuals holding an interest in a corporation or limited liability company from having their records as owners scrutinized by the board,'” the panel said in its order, quoting from an earlier board decision.
Character and fitness is one of the requirements a liquor-license holder must show before the board grants any renewal. The D.C. residents, including Henry Kennedy, who retired from the federal bench in 2011 after 14 years of service there, contend Trump lacks good character. They base their allegations on various Trump statements and his behavior, which they argue negatively affects peace, order and pedestrian safety.
“The ruling is a victory for the rule of law. The board correctly rejected Trump's attempt to silence the public and to be held above the law,” Joshua Levy, a lawyer for the license protesters, said in a statement Friday. “In the District, no one is above the law.”
Levy, a partner at Washington's Cunningham Levy Muse, formerly was a counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. He practiced for more than a decade in the litigation and white-collar groups at Arnold & Porter and Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner, the firm from which Pat Cipollone departed last year to serve as Trump's White House counsel.
Stephen O'Brien, a commercial litigator and partner at Washington's Mallios & O'Brien who represented the Trump hotel, was not reached for comment Friday. O'Brien is also of counsel at Odin Feldman Pittleman in Fairfax, Virginia.
In his motion to dismiss, O'Brien had argued the “general public is not empowered to participate in litigation before the board on the character issue. If it were otherwise, every license application, new or renewal, easily could disintegrate into a popularity contest.”
Alan Garten, general counsel to the Trump Organization, told ABC News last year that the challenge to the hotel's liquor license “is not about the neighborhood, not about the common good and certainly not about the law. This is politics at its worst and an obvious effort to misuse the power of government to advance a political agenda.”
The Alcohol Beverage Control Board stressed that its decision was procedural and not a determination on the merits of the dispute. Lawyers for the hotel will still be allowed to contest whether the residents have standing to press their opposition to the renewal of the liquor license.
Trump's hotel in Washington, where administration officials occasionally dine, and where foreign leaders sometimes rent rooms, is the centerpiece of ongoing litigation about conflicts of interest lodged against the president. Several cases contend Trump is violating the Constitution's ban on accepting gifts or payments from foreign states. One of Kennedy's former colleagues on the trial bench, Emmet Sullivan, last month refused to dismiss a suit brought by 200 Democratic lawmakers.
The D.C. alcohol board's order is posted below:
||
Read more:
2 Amicus Briefs Played Big Roles in Latest 'Emoluments' Ruling Against Trump
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute read'Ill-Gotten Gains'?: Cadwalader Alleges Beef Price-Fixing Conspiracy Hurts McDonald's
2 minute read'Anticompetitive Scheme?': Tyson Foods Faces Missouri Antitrust Class Action in Chicken Plant Dispute
3 minute readKroger and Albertsons Defend Merger Plan in Federal Court Against US Regulators' Objections
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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