CREW v. Trump

Last updated

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case name Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Inc., Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
ArguedOctober 30, 2018
DecidedSeptember 13, 2019
Case history
Prior history276 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Holding
Plaintiffs have standing to bring an Emoluments Clause suit against President Donald Trump. [1]
Court membership
Judges sitting Pierre N. Leval, Christopher F. Droney, John M. Walker, Jr. [1]
Case opinions
Majority Leval, joined by Droney
Dissent Walker

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, [2] [3] 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. [4] A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. [5] CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case. [6] [7] [8]

Contents

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed the case on December 21, 2017, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing. [9] [10] On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal, reinstated the suit, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. [1] In January 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed the lower courts to dismiss the case (and a similar case brought by Maryland and the District of Columbia) as moot, because Trump was no longer president. [11]

Background

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated that because Trump-owned buildings take in rent, room rentals and other payments from foreign governments, the president has breached the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The Constitution says that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the United States, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." [7] The case also includes a claim under the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

An Emoluments Clause lawsuit directed at a sitting president has never been tested in court, and there is little judicial precedent in this area of constitutional law. The Clause is, however, the subject of a considerable body of precedent from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of the Comptroller General. The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction and declaratory judgment directed at President Trump requiring that he cease violations of the Emoluments Clauses. On January 23, 2017, after the action was filed in U.S. District Court, Trump rejected the arguments underlying the lawsuit as "Without merit," and "Totally without merit" during his morning press conference at the White House. [12] [13]

CREW is represented in the suit by "a group comprised of former White House ethics lawyers, constitutional scholars, and Supreme Court litigators," [13] including constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School; Supreme Court litigator Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler PLLC; Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Richard Painter, law professor at the University of Minnesota and chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration; and Zephyr Teachout of Fordham Law School. [6] The United States Department of Justice represents Trump. [7]

Quotes from second amended complaint

Defendant has violated the Constitution since the opening moments of his presidency and is poised to do so continually for the duration of his administration. Specifically, Defendant has committed and will commit violations of both the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause, involving at least: (a) leases held by foreign-government-owned entities in New York's Trump Tower; (b) room reservations, restaurant purchases, the use of facilities, and the purchase of other services and goods by foreign governments and diplomats, state governments, and federal agencies, at Defendant's Washington, D.C. hotel and restaurant; (c) hotel stays, property leases, restaurant purchases, and other business transactions tied to foreign governments, state governments, and federal agencies at other domestic and international establishments owned, operated, or licensed by Defendant; (d) property interests or other business dealings tied to foreign governments in numerous other countries; (e) payments from foreign-government-owned broadcasters related to rebroadcasts and foreign versions of the television program "The Apprentice" and its spinoffs; and (f) continuation of the General Services Administration lease for Defendant's Washington, D.C. hotel despite Defendant's breach, and potential provision of federal tax credits in connection with the same property. [14]

District court proceedings

President Trump filed a motion to dismiss on June 9, 2017. [15] on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no right to sue [16] and that the described conduct was not illegal. [17] A response to the motion to dismiss was filed on August 4, 2017, with a DOJ reply due by September 22, 2017. [18] A full answer from DOJ lawyers to the facts alleged in the complaint was due on August 11, 2017. [19] Oral arguments were expected October 18, 2017. [20]

On December 21, 2017, the motion to dismiss was granted; Judge George B. Daniels held that plaintiffs lacked standing. [10]

Second Circuit proceedings

On February 16, 2018, the dismissal of the suit was appealed by CREW, [21] primarily on an economically informed theory of emolument-related injury to competitors, [22] with all briefs filed by both parties by June 27. Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler presented oral argument for the plaintiffs before a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit on October 30, 2018. On September 13, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York (in a 2 to 1 decision) reinstated the lawsuit and sent it back to the lower court so that the case can move forward. [1] The appellate decision was critical of the July 2019 appellate decision in D.C. and Maryland v. Trump . [23] [24]

In January 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed the lower courts to dismiss the case (and a similar case brought by Maryland and the District of Columbia) as moot, because Trump was no longer president. [11]

On April 23, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate which dismissed the case. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) watchdog organization devoted to U.S. government ethics and accountability. Founded in 2003 as a counterweight to conservative government watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch, CREW works to expose ethics violations and corruption by government officials and institutions and to reduce the role of money in politics.

<i>Alperin v. Vatican Bank</i> Class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Alperin v. Vatican Bank was an unsuccessful class action suit by Holocaust survivors brought against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order filed in San Francisco, California, on November 15, 1999. The case was initially dismissed as a political question by the District Court for the Northern District of California in 2003, but was reinstated in part by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2005. That ruling attracted attention as a precedent at the intersection of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

<i>Wilson v. Libby</i>

Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74, affirmed, 535 F.3d 697, was a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on 13 July, 2006, by Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV, against Richard Armitage (individually) for allegedly revealing her identity and thus irresponsibly infringing upon her Constitutional rights and against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, and the unnamed others (together) because the latter, in addition, allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity." The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

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.

Denise Louise Cote is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter J. Messitte</span> American judge (born 1941)

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 (born 1968)

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 decision 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 50 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 equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Painter</span> American lawyer

Richard William Painter is an American lawyer, professor, and political candidate. From 2005 to 2007 Painter was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. He is the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota, and since 2016 has served as vice-chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group.

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<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>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.

<i>Blumenthal v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between members of Congress and Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14, 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, denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and certified interlocutory appeal.

<i>CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP</i> Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

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.

<i>NAACP LDF v. Trump</i>

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-05427-ALC, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The Ordinary People Society, and a coalition of civil rights groups alleged that the defendants, President Donald Trump, the Vice President Michael Pence, and Kris Kobach were in violation of the Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PEIC) for the purpose of intentionally discriminating against Black and Latino voters in violation of the Fifth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. was a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 and dismissed in 2020. Filed 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 initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

<i>Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation</i> Civil lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)

Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation, et al. was a civil lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Russian Federation, WikiLeaks and other entities and individuals. The case, relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, was filed on April 20, 2018. The DNC's complaint accused the Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks. The American Civil Liberties Union, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and others filed friend-of-the-court briefs expressing concern over the lawsuit's implications for freedom of the press.

The Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Nevada. Many of the processes contested were created due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous civil lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Sharon LaFraniere, U.S. Appeals Court Reinstates Emoluments Case Against Trump, The New York Times (September 13, 2019).
  2. ↑ "House Democrats have oversight investigation plans far beyond Russia probe". NBC News . November 9, 2018. Retrieved December 16, 2018.
  3. ↑ Samuels, Brett (May 16, 2018). "Ethics watchdog: Trump should have disclosed Cohen payment last year". The Hill . Retrieved December 16, 2018.
  4. ↑ "Lawsuit accusing Trump of violating the Constitution just expanded". CNBC . Reuters. April 18, 2017. Archived from the original on April 21, 2017.LaFraniere, Sharon (April 18, 2017). "Watchdog Group Expands Lawsuit Against Trump". The New York Times . Retrieved June 11, 2017.
  5. ↑ "CREW v. Trump Adds New Plaintiff" (Press release). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. May 10, 2017. Retrieved June 10, 2017.
  6. 1 2 Complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, No. 1:17-cv-00458 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2017)
  7. 1 2 3 Fahrenthold, David A.; O'Connell, Jonathan (January 22, 2017). "Liberal watchdog group sues Trump, alleging he violated constitutional ban". The Washington Post .
  8. ↑ David A. Fahrenthold; Jonathan O'Connell (January 23, 2017). "What is the 'Emoluments Clause'? Does it apply to President Trump?". The Washington Post .
  9. ↑ "Judge dismisses lawsuit alleging Trump violated Constitution". The Washington Post . December 21, 2017.
  10. 1 2 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump , 17 Civ. 458 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017).
  11. 1 2 de Vogue, Ariane; Cole, Devan (January 25, 2021). "Supreme Court dismisses emoluments cases against Trump". CNN .
  12. ↑ "[UPDATE] CREW Sues Trump Over Emoluments" (Press release). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. January 23, 2017.
  13. 1 2 Chris Riback (January 23, 2017). "Why Trump's business conflicts can't—and won't—just be swept aside". CNBC.
  14. ↑ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (May 10, 2017). "Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28" (PDF).
  15. ↑ "Copy of Docket" . Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  16. ↑ Geewax, Marilyn (June 9, 2017). "Trump Administration Calls For Lawsuit About His Businesses To Be Dismissed". NPR. Retrieved June 10, 2017.
  17. ↑ Smith, Allan (June 10, 2017). "Justice Department argues it's fine for Trump to take payments from foreign governments, citing George Washington". Business Insider . Retrieved June 10, 2017.
  18. ↑ "Order" (PDF), CREW v. Trump (Court Filing), no. 1:17-cv-00458, Docket 47, S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2017, retrieved August 6, 2017– via Recap ( PACER current docket view Lock-red-alt.svg)
  19. ↑ "Order" (PDF), CREW v. Trump (Court Filing), no. 1:17-cv-00458, Docket 29, S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017, retrieved June 12, 2017– via Recap ( PACER current docket view Lock-red-alt.svg)
  20. ↑ Beavers, Olivia (October 15, 2017). "Oral arguments this week in lawsuit against Trump over Emoluments Clause". The Hill . Retrieved October 16, 2017.
  21. ↑ "Notice Of Appeal Filed In Emoluments Case" (Press release). Washington: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. February 16, 2018. Archived from the original on October 11, 2018. Retrieved October 10, 2018.
  22. ↑ Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, filed April 24, 2018, 2d Cir. Docket 18-0474, Document 27
  23. ↑ Mystal, Elie (September 16, 2019). "Emoluments Are Back On The Table: Second Circuit reinstates emoluments lawsuit against Trump". Above the Law . Retrieved October 19, 2019. The Second Circuit's opinion then goes into a point-by-point take down of the Fourth Circuit opinion.
  24. ↑ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Inc., Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode v. Donald J. Trump, pp.30-45( 2nd Cir. September 13, 2019)("The Fourth Circuit expressed skepticism as to "why [the plaintiffs] came to the court for relief in the first place," implying that their motivation was political and that this cast doubt on the federal court's jurisdiction. While it is certainly possible that these lawsuits are fueled in part by political motivations, we do not understand the significance of that fact. But while the existence of a political motivation for a lawsuit does not supply standing, nor does it defeat standing. Whether a lawsuit has political motivations is irrelevant to these determinative issues. [citations omitted]"), Text .
  25. ↑ 17-cv-458. MANDATE of USCA.
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.