Introduction

The recent DC Circuit Court of Appeals case, Blumenthal et al v. Trump, centered around President Trump’s business and hotel services (both in New York and Washington, DC). Blumenthal complained that the President collects profits from foreign dignitaries. However, the politically diverse panel of judges sent the case back to the lower court, claiming that the plaintiff did not have standing to file the suit. According to the Court, only an institution can bring a suit upon someone for an “institutional injury,” not individual members. 

Witnessing the President endure an emoluments lawsuit and impeachment should provoke a citizen to ask: Why was this case brought about in the first place? What standing did Congressmen and women think they had, and what evidence was presented where the defense believed it necessary to appeal to a higher court? Finally, what transpired in the higher court that forced the ideologically diverse judges to reverse the decision? Precedents are key for understanding how these decisions were made. 

History and Context

Located in Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, the Emoluments Clause is meant to shield officeholders from foreign corrupting influences. This clause has a sister in Article II Section 1, which prevents the President from receiving government gifts from the United States other than his rightful salary. 

The clause’s origin dates back to before the Revolution, and it was included in the Articles of Confederation. It was implemented to prevent corruption, even unconscious corruption, of federal officeholders by banning the receipt of gifts from foriegn powers. Receipt of titles of nobility could sway the recipient in a treasonous way which, near the genesis of the country, was a significant concern.

The most relevant feature of the clause to Blumenthal et al v. Trump is the goal of restricting profits, benefits, advantages, or services. President Trump is under scrutiny for this because, before the election, he was a well known businessman whose companies and world-recognized hotels still operate and make profit. Even though his sons are formally in charge of the Trump Organization, it has been claimed that the flow of profits inevitably reaches the President, which is illegal.

Catalyst

One must consider who filed the lawsuit and why, rather than just taking the suit at face value. In law, standing is just as important as the complaint itself, and the situation at hand almost exclusively involves an issue of standing. 

The 186 Democratic Congressmen and women and 29 senators who filed the lawsuit in 2017 claimed that President Trump violated the Emoluments Clause by hosting foreign officials at his Washington hotel location. Congress is constitutionally empowered in Article I to vote on the president’s ability to receive emoluments, but they were not given the chance to do so when these officials spent money at Trump Hotels.  Although, he is no longer the official owner of the Trump Organization and can not directly accept the profits, it’s been claimed that he accepts these profits through his business indirectly and does so without consulting Congress.

The Standing and Evidence

In order to bring about a suit of one branch of government by another, there must be recognition of standing under Article III of the Constitution by a federal court. The process is the same for individuals in court as well. The per curiam report of the Appeals Court held that Congress did not, in fact, have standing to make such a charge. The plaintiff provided that gaining profits from hotel stays of foreign officials is equivalent to accepting emoluments. President Trump’s previous job as an international businessman allowed him to collect such “emoluments” from foreign governments, but while he is President it is noncompliant according to Congress’s financial power. 

Raines v. Byrd and Spokeo Inc. v. Robins were cited to strengthen the defense’s argument for dismissal. Both cases defined standing in court, however, the defense emphasized Raines since it addresses injury of individuals and institutional standing. Even though a significant number of Congress members joined the suit, the majority of Congress did not, so the institution as a whole can not legally have standing according to the Raines decision, as argued by the defense. 

This case is one of three that say the President violated the Emoluments Clause. Citizens for Responsibility of Ethics in Washington et al v. Trump started in October of 2017 when Citizens for Responsibility of Ethics in Washington (CREW) appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after the District Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that CREW had no standing. After CREW’s appeal, the Appeals Court ruled that the plaintiff does have standing to sue as the case does not create a political question and their case for suit is “ripe”. The country waits for the release of the three-judge panel’s ruling. 

The District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump began in 2017 as well, claiming the same as the other related cases: President Trump’s refusal to divest his international business interests allowed him to collect benefits and profits from foreign officials via his hotels and private business. Residents of the two jurisdictions are injured by decreased wages and business which are “diverted” by the President’s business’s “commercial activity.”  The District Court held that the District and Maryland had standing and valid claims against the President regarding the Trump International Hotel Washington, DC location. The Appeals Court decided proprietary injuries described by the District and Maryland were of valid concern, but their claims were based “on operations outside of the District. The ruling emphasized the need for speculation about officials using the hotels; they may choose to stay there because it’s a great hotel, rather than it being related to the President.

Once again in the District Court, several attempts at filing for dismissal failed, so the President filed for a writ of mandamus. It was eventually granted by the Appeals Court and sent down to the District Court. The Appeals Court wrote that such a suit would distract a sitting president from carrying out his constitutional duties. The argument against Congress’s standing was that the Emoluments clause regulates private business activity of an official. Trump conducts private business without Congressional funds, so Congress’s “‘power of the purse’” is seemingly irrelevant to this case and can not be used to force the president to comply with the Emoluments Clause. The case is not officially closed as the oral arguments in the Fourth Circuit from December 2019 have yet to be ruled on. 

In Blumenthal et al., the Court did not rule that the President did not violate the law, but that the Congressmen and women involved in the lawsuit had no standing to bring about such a case. The Supreme Court previously held in Raines what was decided in VA House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill: individual members of Congress can not have standing on behalf of the institution as a whole since one house of a bicameral legislature can not represent the legislature as a whole, nor can a small minority represent a house of the legislature as a whole. This unanimous decision, as described in the per curiam Opinion for the Court, mandated that the case be sent back to the District Court. 

Blumenthal et al. had previously been sent back to the District Court to be reheard in 2018. In September of 2018, the District Court ruled that the plaintiff’s standing was valid because the President inherently denied Congress its constitutional right to vote on emoluments, thus injuring them in their capacity as Congress members. Upon appeal and according to the Appeals Court in 2020, the District Court’s decision was a misreading of Raines and Bethune-Hill–the main precedents of the case–and thus the complaint was dismissed on February 7, 2020.

Expectations

This is the first time the Federal Circuit has the need to hear an emoluments case involving the President of the United States. Presidential impeachment, which itself is rare, is more common than this situation. With the Blumenthal case being thrown out, the Rule of Law may be left in a delicate and vulnerable position for future presidencies. The two other cases, CREW and DC and Maryland, may be able to settle the emoluments disputes in the Appeals and District Courts. However, a Supreme Court hearing may be necessary to alleviate the blurred line between accepting profits and benefits indirectly and directly. 

The consensus on the solution to the problem isn’t to punish Trump, but rather to force him to simply stop violating the law. This is clearly a check Congress can make on the Executive branch, however, it will not work if their cases continue to be dismissed for lack of standing. The current division of parties in the legislature keeps the Democrats from gaining standing. If they do, it will be extremely difficult for the President to defend himself before a Court that has yet to remark on, nevermind deny, his violation of the law.

For the same reason, the case’s dismissal demonstrates that Congress is not invincible and cannot freely file cases against another branch. The same judicial rules apply to branches of the federal government as they do to citizens in their individual capacities. The President may be able to continue his activity against Congress’s wishes, but it’s only just that Congress discontinues his behavior legally. The historical battle over political power between the legislative and executive branches intensified in 2017 and hasn’t slowed while the two branches consistently attempt to involve the judicial branch. This contentious feud is a reminder that the separation of powers the Constitution provides will always be relevant and necessary for deterring tyranny from stemming from any of the branches.