Judge Hands Off Emoluments Case to DC Circuit in Win for Trump DOJ
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan granted the Justice Department's request to stay the lawsuit and allow the circuit court to review his previous rulings that allowed the case to proceed.
August 21, 2019 at 05:10 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will now decide whether Democrats' lawsuit alleging President Donald Trump is violating the Constitution's emoluments clause can advance after a district judge stayed his own ruling Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia granted the Justice Department's request to stay the lawsuit and allow the circuit court to review his previous rulings that found the case could move forward.
Sullivan cited a July circuit court decision that found he improperly dismissed DOJ's motion for the appeals court to take a second look at his prior rulings in the case, with the panel pointing specifically to separation of powers issues raised by the lawsuit.
More than 200 Democratic members of Congress first filed the lawsuit in District Court for the District of Columbia in 2017, and Sullivan scrutinized whether the lawmakers have standing to sue the president in an individual capacity.
He previously found that the lawmakers could sue and ordered the case to advance to discovery. Democrats issued subpoenas to several of Trump's private businesses, including the Trump Organization, as a result of Sullivan's rulings.
The Trump Justice Department still sought to stall the case, asking Sullivan in May to grant a motion for interlocutory appeal that would allow the circuit court to review his rulings. Sullivan denied that request.
DOJ then filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the circuit court in July. While the court denied the petition, the panel wrote they believed "the district court abused its discretion by concluding that an immediate appeal would not advance the ultimate termination of the litigation just because discovery and summary judgment briefing could proceed expeditiously."
Sullivan pointed to that finding in his order Wednesday, which tosses out his previous rulings that advanced the case. The judge previously halted discovery in the lawsuit after the circuit judges sent the decision on whether to grant the interlocutory appeal back down to his court.
Sullivan also wrote in his opinion that the Democrats' suggestion that the case could skip discovery and go to a fast-tracked briefing schedule for summary judgement "would be inconsistent with the remand order from the D.C. Circuit."
Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Advocacy Center which is representing Democrats in the suit, said in a statement that they are not deterred by the ruling.
"We look forward to making our case in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of more than 200 Members of Congress that President Trump continues to violate the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause and should be ordered to stop doing so as expeditiously as possible," she said.
Trump has faced scrutiny from Democrats over whether he is violating the emoluments clause by continuing to maintain ownership in his private businesses while in office.
The clause states that Congress must approve any foreign gifts received by a president, and lawmakers in this case allege that they have been deprived of this opportunity to review foreign profits Trump has pocketed.
The Justice Department argues that the earnings do not constitute an emolument, and are therefore not reviewable by Congress.
A panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed another emoluments lawsuit earlier this year. The judges found that the attorneys general for Maryland and D.C., who brought the complaint, did not have standing to sue 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 All'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readWilmer, Miles & Stockbridge, and Polsinelli Hire Litigation, Government Contract Attorneys
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 2Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 3HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 4'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 5Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
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