Blumenthal v. Trump
{{Short description|Lawsuit between members of Congress and Donald Trump concerning emoluments}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2017}}
{{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case
|Litigants=Blumenthal v. Trump
|Court=United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
|CourtSeal=Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
|ArgueDate=December 9,
|ArgueYear=2019
|DecideDate=February 7,
|DecideYear=2020
|FullName= Richard Blumenthal, et al., Appellees v. Donald J. Trump, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States of America, Appellant
|Citations=949 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20200207152 14] (D.C. Cir. 2020)
|Prior=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6073688/blumenthal-v-trump/ No. 1:17-cv-01154], 335 F. Supp. 3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20181002h43 45] (D.D.C. 2018); 373 F. Supp. 3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190503987 191] (D.D.C. 2019)
|Subsequent=
|Holding=The Court of Appeals held that members of Congress lacked standing to bring an emoluments clause action against the President under U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 because individual members of the Congress lack standing to assert the institutional interests of the legislature. The district court erred in holding that the members suffered an injury based on the President depriving them of the opportunity to give or withhold their consent to foreign emoluments.{{cite court |litigants=Blumenthal v. Trump |vol=949 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=14 |pinpoint= |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2020 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20200207152 |accessdate=2020-06-27 |quote=}}
|Judges=Karen L. Henderson, David S. Tatel, Thomas B. Griffith
|PerCuriam=yes
|LawsApplied=
| counsel for plaintiff= Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra,{{citation|title=Notice of Appearance, Docket 2|date=June 14, 2017}}{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.1.0.pdf|title=Complaint, Docket 1|page=54|date=June 14, 2017|access-date=2017-06-16}} Brian Rene Frazelle,{{citation|title=Notice of Appearance, Docket 3|date=June 14, 2017}} Brianne Jenna Gorod{{citation|title=Notice of Appearance, Docket 4|date=June 14, 2017}}
}}
Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020), was a U.S. constitutional law and federal civil procedure lawsuit heard by Circuit Judges Henderson, Tatel, and Griffith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case was on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted in part and denied in part the President's motion to dismiss for lack of standing,{{cite court |litigants=Blumenthal v. Trump |vol=335 |reporter=F. Supp. 3d |opinion=45 |pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=2018 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20181002h43 |accessdate=2020-06-27 |quote=}} denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim,{{cite court |litigants=Blumenthal v. Trump |vol=373 |reporter=F. Supp. 3d |opinion=191 |pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=2019 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190503987 |accessdate=2020-06-27 |quote=}} and certified interlocutory appeal.(No. 1:17-cv-01154)
On February 7, 2020, in a per curiam decision, the court of appeals held that individual members of Congress lacked standing to bring action against the President where they sought declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, opinion PER CURIAM, February 7, 2020 https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2EFD382E65E33B3C852585070055D091/$file/19-5237-1827549.pdf The court, finding in favor of President Trump, reversed and remanded the lower court's holding that the members had standing to sue, with instructions to the district court to dismiss the complaint.Blumenthal v. Trump, 19-5237, 2020 WL 593891, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) The dismissal subsequently rendered the other issue on appeal, the holding that the members had a cause of action and stated a claim, vacated as moot.
Background and initiation of suit
Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of the Constitution, was concerned about foreign corruption of the new United States.{{citation|work=The Federalist Papers|title=The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation|last=Hamilton|first=Alexander|number=22|url=https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-22|date=December 14, 1787|access-date=June 15, 2017|quote=Evils of this description {{bracket|bribery to further foreign ends}} ought not to be regarded as imaginary. One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.}} Towards that end, the Foreign Emoluments Clause can be seen as a measure to prevent corruption, but one that has yet to be interpreted by the courts.{{cite web|title=Emoluments Clause|work=The Heritage Guide to The Constitution|first=Robert J.|last=Delahunty|access-date=2017-06-15|url=http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120421180046/http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause|url-status=unfit|archive-date=April 21, 2012}}{{cite web|title=The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump|work=Governance Studies at Brookings|first1=Norman L.|last1= Eisen |first2=Richard|last2=Painter|first3=Laurence H.|last3=Tribe|access-date=June 15, 2017|date=December 16, 2016|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf}}
The plaintiffs, 29 Senators and 186 Representatives, led by the Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Richard Blumenthal and the similarly situated Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers Jr., alleged that the defendant, Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.{{Cite web|url=https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.83.0.pdf|title=Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint|last=|first=|date=June 26, 2019|website=archive.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200219063406/https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.83.0.pdf|archive-date=February 19, 2020|access-date=February 19, 2020}} They alleged that this behavior impeded their constitutional right to be advised of such foreign payments and their duty to weigh in on potentially unauthorized emoluments.
With lawyers from the Constitutional Accountability Center, the plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 14, 2017,{{cite press release|author=|url=http://theusconstitution.org/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause|title=Trump and the Foreign Emoluments Clause|publisher=Constitutional Accountability Center|access-date=2017-06-14}} shortly after similar lawsuits from watchdog groups, economic competitors, and state and local governments made the news.{{cite news|last1=LaFraniere|first1=Sharon|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/justice-department-lawsuit-trump-business.html|title=Justice Dept. Wants Lawsuit Against President Trump Thrown Out|date=2017-06-09|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=2017-06-14}} {{cite news|last1=Davis|first1=Aaron C.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-and-marylands-lawsuit-trump-flagrantly-violating-emoluments-clause/2017/06/12/8a9806a8-4f9b-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html|title=D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump 'flagrantly violating' emoluments clause|date=2017-06-12|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-06-14|last2=Tumulty|first2=Karen}}{{cite news|last1=Bykowicz|first1=Julie|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/06/13/democrats-congress-are-latest-sue-president-trump/1tG7Mqk5tO4kxjHDh94ABO/story.html|title=Democrats in Congress are the latest to sue President Trump|date=June 14, 2017|newspaper=Boston Globe|access-date=June 14, 2017|agency=Associated Press|archive-date=June 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170614054544/http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/06/13/democrats-congress-are-latest-sue-president-trump/1tG7Mqk5tO4kxjHDh94ABO/story.html|url-status=dead}} The court rejected several of Trump's arguments, and Trump's request for a writ of mandamus in the case was rejected by a higher court, but the case was stayed until December 2019 while a permitted immediate appeal of the case-to-date was decided.
Timeline
The initial case was filed on June 14, 2017.{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.1.0.pdf|title=Complaint, Docket 1|date=2017-06-14|access-date=2017-06-14}} The defendant was served immediately,{{citation|title=Summons (1) Issued Electronically as to DONALD J. TRUMP, Docket 5|date=June 14, 2017}} {{citation|title=Summons (2) Issued Electronically as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General, Docket 8|date=June 14, 2017}} FRCP Rule {{frcp|4}}(i)(2). but because President Trump was being sued in his official capacity, no official action was required before August 14, 2017.FRCP Rule {{frcp|12}}(a)(2). FRCP Rule {{frcp|6}}(1)(C). On September 15, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case. Various supplemental briefs were filed between September and April 2018.{{cite web |url=https://www.open-public-records.com/court/district-of-columbia-314761.htm |title=U.S. Civil Court Records for the District of Columbia, Case Number 1:17-cv-01154 |publisher=Open Public Records |access-date=August 23, 2018 |archive-date=March 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327222637/https://www.open-public-records.com/court/district-of-columbia-314761.htm |url-status=dead }} Oral arguments were heard in June 2018, mostly debating whether lawmakers have standing to sue the president.{{cite news |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/07/donald-trump-lawmakers-emoluments-lawsuit-631533 |title=Lawmakers battle Trump in court over emoluments |work=Politico |first=Josh |last=Gerstein |date=June 7, 2018 |access-date=August 23, 2018}} U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled on September 28, 2018, that the plaintiff members of Congress have standing to sue in the case, but left for another day any ruling on other arguments raised by the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss.{{cite news |last= Stanglin |first= Doug |date=September 29, 2018 |title= Federal judge: Democrats in Congress can sue Trump in emoluments case |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/29/federal-judge-democrats-congress-can-sue-trump-emoluments-case/1470694002/ |newspaper=USA Today |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=October 1, 2018 }} On April 30, 2019, Judge Sullivan denied Trump's motion to dismiss and further ruled that the plaintiff members of Congress had standing to sue, that there was grounds for injunctive relief against the President, and that the relief sought was constitutional.{{cite news |last= Thomsen |first= Jacqueline |date=April 30, 2019 |title= Federal judge rejects Trump request to dismiss Democrats' Emoluments Clause lawsuit |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/441468-federal-judge-rejects-trump-request-to-dismiss-democrats-emoluments |work=TheHill.com |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=April 30, 2019 }} On August 21, 2019, Judge Sullivan, responding to the July 19, 2019 opinion of the D.C. Circuit court denying Trump petition for a writ of mandamus, stayed the case pending a newly allowed interlocutory appeal of previous rulings to the D.C. Circuit.{{cite web|url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11086 |title=The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution |first1=Kevin J. |last1=Hickey |first2=Michael A. |last2=Foster |publisher=Congressional Research Service|date=October 16, 2019|access-date=October 28, 2019}}{{cite web|url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1191344/trump-gets-green-light-to-appeal-dems-emoluments-suit |title=Trump Gets Green Light To Appeal Dems' Emoluments Suit |publisher=Law360|date=August 21, 2019|access-date=October 28, 2019}} That appeal was argued before a three judge panel on December 9, 2019, and the panel issued its decision, per curiam, ruling that the members of Congress lacked standing to sue, remanding the case to the district court with orders to dismiss.{{cite web|url=https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/newcalendar?openview&term=current&count=1000&date=2019-12-09 |title=Oral Argument Calendar |publisher=United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit |access-date=October 28, 2019}}United States Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, opinion PER CURIAM, February 7, 2020, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2EFD382E65E33B3C852585070055D091/$file/19-5237-1827549.pdf
See also
References
{{Reflist|2}}
External links
- {{caselaw source
| case = Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18423197138123968805
| leagle =https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20200207152
}}
- [https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.1.0.pdf Copy of complaint filed in United States District Court] (PDF, 54 pages, 943 KB)
- Appeals Court Decision, February 7, 2020 [https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2EFD382E65E33B3C852585070055D091/$file/19-5237-1827549.pdf] (PDF, 12 pages)
- [https://web.archive.org/web/20200219063406/https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.83.0.pdf PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT] (PDF, 59 pages)
Category:2017 in United States case law
Category:Donald Trump litigation
Category:United States Constitution Article One case law
Category:United States District Court for the District of Columbia cases
Category:2020 in United States case law
Category:United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases