Trump International Hotel at the center of appeals fight in lawsuit
Attorneys for President Donald Trump will appear in court Tuesday to argue against claims that the president violated a constitutional clause that prohibits elected officials from doing business with foreign governments.
The case, which is being brought jointly by the attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, D.C., argues that Trump violated the U.S. Constitution’s foreign emoluments clauses by benefiting from the patronage of foreign dignitaries at the Trump International Hotel located just a few blocks away from the White House.
On any given night, patrons walking through the lobby could chance upon Trump insiders hosting social events, or could even spot the president himself dropping in for dinner unannounced.
The hotel also sees its fair share of foreign government officials. Dignitaries from Bahrain, Azerbeijan, Nigeria and South Korea have all been spotted in the hotel, and just last month the hotel hosted the Kuwaiti embassy’s national gala.
Attorneys who have brought the lawsuit against Trump are arguing that foreign officials who patronize Trump’s D.C. property may be currying favor with the president.
“We’re very confident that we can prove that the President of the United States, a major owner of the Trump Hotel, is in fact receiving moneys from foreign countries who are quite motivated to show the president favor,” said Karl Racine, the Washington D.C. attorney general. “So that the president might be more inclined to tilt in a direction that they like.”
The Constitution’s two so-called emoluments clauses prohibit the president from accepting gifts or profiting from a foreign or domestic government. Tuesday’s case is one of three such cases brought against the president related to this issue.
Attorneys for the president moved that one of the other cases, brought by members of Congress, be dismissed. A judge in that case found that the members of Congress have standing for the suit, and is currently considering other elements of the president’s motion to dismiss. The other emoluments case, brought by a government watchdog group, was dismissed and is currently being appealed.
Attorneys for the president attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed earlier this year, but a judge in Maryland ruled in July that the case could proceed, citing in his decision that the Maryland and D.C. attorneys general had “convincingly argued that the term ’emolument’ … means any ‘profit,’ ‘gain,’ or ‘advantage’ and that accordingly, they have stated claims to the effect that the president, in certain instances, has violated both the foreign and domestic clause.”
The outcome of the case will depend largely on how the term “emolument” comes to be defined. This is open for debate however, as emoluments cases are exceptionally rare, and one has never gone to trial in the United States.
Earlier this year, the president’s legal team argued for a more narrowly tailored interpretation of the emoluments clause, stating that payments by foreign dignitaries to the Trump Hotel should not be considered emoluments because they don’t relate to his work as president.
The president is being represented in his professional capacity by attorneys from the Department of Justice.
But the judge who allowed the case to proceed sided with the Maryland and D.C. attorneys generals’ broader definition of the term, who argued that an emolument is anything of value, including payments to the president’s companies.
“No Americans should ever have to question whether a decision, a priority, or a policy approach that the President is taking has been influenced by his receipt of foreign money that goes right into his pocket,” Racine said. “That’s why we’re bringing this lawsuit.”
“Unlike any other luxury hospitality company, we do not market to or solicit foreign government business,” said Eric Trump, an executive vice president of the Trump Organization. “In fact, we go to great lengths to discourage foreign government patronage at our properties.”
Potential violations of the emoluments clause have also caught the attention of some members of Congress with oversight power.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the House Oversight committee, told ABC News that he believes that Trump is personally profiting from the presidency.
“Every time he gets a check. Every time you have a situation where — people say — go to his hotel — spend money there, and it appears that they are trying to either curry favor or they’re trying to get something,” Cummings said. “That, to me, is a violation.”
During Tuesday’s arguments before an appellate judge in Richmond, Virginia, attorneys for the president will challenge that ruling, arguing as they have in the past that foreign dignitaries simply “prefer the Trump brand” and are not currying favor with the president when patronizing the Trump Hotel.