Jump to content

Blumenthal v. Trump

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blumenthal v. Trump
CourtUnited 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 plaintiffElizabeth Bonnie Wydra,[1][2] Brian Rene Frazelle,[3][2] Brianne Jenna Gorod[4][2]
Citation949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
Case history
Prior historyNo. 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
Judges sittingKaren 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]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Notice of Appearance, Docket 2, June 14, 2017
  2. ^ a b c "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. ^ a b c d Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
  6. ^ Blumenthal v. Trump, 335 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. 2018).
  7. ^ Blumenthal v. Trump, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191 (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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b "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. ^ a b c "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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b "Trump Gets Green Light To Appeal Dems' Emoluments Suit". Law360. August 21, 2019. Retrieved October 28, 2019.
  20. ^ a b "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, 2017 Summons (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
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blumenthal_v._Trump&oldid=1154332772"