Blumenthal v. Trump

Last updated

Blumenthal v. Trump
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case name Richard Blumenthal, et al., Appellees v. Donald J. Trump, in His Official Capacity as President of the United States of America, Appellant
ArguedDecember 9, 2019
DecidedFebruary 7, 2020
Counsel for plaintiff(s)Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra, [1] [2] Brian Rene Frazelle, [3] [2] Brianne Jenna Gorod [4] [2]
Citation(s)949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Case history
Prior history No. 1:17-cv-01154, 335 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2018); 373 F. Supp. 3d 191 (D.D.C. 2019)
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. [5]
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Karen L. Henderson, David S. Tatel, Thomas B. Griffith
Case opinions
Per curiam

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. [5] 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, [6] denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, [7] and certified interlocutory appeal. [5] [8]

Contents

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. [5] [9] 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. [10] 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. [10]

Background and initiation of suit

Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of the Constitution, was concerned about foreign corruption of the new United States. [11] 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. [12] [13]

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. [14] 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. [14]

With lawyers from the Constitutional Accountability Center, the plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 14, 2017, [15] shortly after similar lawsuits from watchdog groups, economic competitors, and state and local governments made the news. [16] [17] 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. [18] [19] [20]

Timeline

The initial case was filed on June 14, 2017. [21] The defendant was served immediately, [22] but because President Trump was being sued in his official capacity, no official action was required before August 14, 2017. [23] On September 15, 2017, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case. [15] Various supplemental briefs were filed between September and April 2018. [15] [24] Oral arguments were heard in June 2018, mostly debating whether lawmakers have standing to sue the president. [25] 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. [26] 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. [27] 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. [18] [19] 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. [20] [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the federal government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Titles of Nobility Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences". The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emmet G. Sullivan</span> American judge (born 1947)

Emmet Gael Sullivan is an American attorney and jurist serving as a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Peter Jo Messitte is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ronnie Abrams</span> American judge

Ronnie Abrams is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

<i>CREW v. Trump</i> Lawsuit against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President 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. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017 Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the lawfulness and constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

<i>Intl Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump</i>

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP</i>

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, No. 1:17-cv-01228, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the archivist National Security Archive, allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump and elements of the Executive Office of the President, are in violation of the Presidential Records Act by deleting electronic messages on Twitter and using other electronic messaging applications without required archival records.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)</span>

The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups intervened as defendants, but were later dropped at their request following the 2016 presidential election.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Wisconsin. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

References

  1. ↑ Notice of Appearance, Docket 2, June 14, 2017
  2. 1 2 3 "Complaint, Docket 1" (PDF). June 14, 2017. p. 54. Retrieved June 16, 2017.
  3. ↑ Notice of Appearance, Docket 3, June 14, 2017
  4. ↑ Notice of Appearance, Docket 4, June 14, 2017
  5. 1 2 3 4 Blumenthal v. Trump, 949F.3d14 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
  6. ↑ Blumenthal v. Trump, 335F. Supp. 3d45 ( D.D.C. 2018).
  7. ↑ Blumenthal v. Trump, 373F. Supp. 3d191 ( D.D.C. 2019).
  8. ↑ (No. 1:17-cv-01154)
  9. ↑ 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
  10. 1 2 Blumenthal v. Trump, 19-5237, 2020 WL 593891, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020)
  11. ↑ Hamilton, Alexander (December 14, 1787), "The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation", The Federalist Papers, no.  22 , retrieved June 15, 2017, Evils of this description [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.
  12. ↑ Delahunty, Robert J. "Emoluments Clause". The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
  13. ↑ Eisen, Norman L.; Painter, Richard; Tribe, Laurence H. (December 16, 2016). "The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump" (PDF). Governance Studies at Brookings. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
  14. 1 2 "Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint" (PDF). archive.org. June 26, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 19, 2020. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  15. 1 2 3 "Trump and the Foreign Emoluments Clause" (Press release). Constitutional Accountability Center. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  16. ↑ LaFraniere, Sharon (June 9, 2017). "Justice Dept. Wants Lawsuit Against President Trump Thrown Out". The New York Times. Retrieved June 14, 2017.Davis, Aaron C.; Tumulty, Karen (June 12, 2017). "D.C. and Maryland AGs: Trump 'flagrantly violating' emoluments clause". Washington Post. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  17. ↑ Bykowicz, Julie (June 14, 2017). "Democrats in Congress are the latest to sue President Trump". Boston Globe . Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 14, 2017. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  18. 1 2 Hickey, Kevin J.; Foster, Michael A. (October 16, 2019). "The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  19. 1 2 "Trump Gets Green Light To Appeal Dems' Emoluments Suit". Law360. August 21, 2019. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  20. 1 2 "Oral Argument Calendar". United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  21. ↑ "Complaint, Docket 1" (PDF). June 14, 2017. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  22. ↑ Summons (1) Issued Electronically as to DONALD J. TRUMP, Docket 5, June 14, 2017Summons (2) Issued Electronically as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General, Docket 8, June 14, 2017 FRCP Rule 4(i)(2).
  23. ↑ FRCP Rule 12(a)(2). FRCP Rule 6(1)(C).
  24. ↑ "U.S. Civil Court Records for the District of Columbia, Case Number 1:17-cv-01154". Open Public Records. Archived from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved August 23, 2018.
  25. ↑ Gerstein, Josh (June 7, 2018). "Lawmakers battle Trump in court over emoluments". Politico . Retrieved August 23, 2018.
  26. ↑ Stanglin, Doug (September 29, 2018). "Federal judge: Democrats in Congress can sue Trump in emoluments case". USA Today. Washington, D.C. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  27. ↑ Thomsen, Jacqueline (April 30, 2019). "Federal judge rejects Trump request to dismiss Democrats' Emoluments Clause lawsuit". TheHill.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  28. ↑ 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
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.