Anonymous ID: 95ac49 March 16, 2019, 5:13 p.m. No.5727198   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Appeals court to hear arguments in Trump hotel lawsuit

 

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The outcome of a lawsuit alleging that Donald Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by profiting off the presidency could depend largely on competing definitions of an antiquated word: emoluments.

 

At the center of the lawsuit is the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bans federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.

 

The attorneys general of Maryland and Washington say government spending at Trump’s Washington hotel falls under a broad definition of emoluments: any profit, gain, or advantage.

Trump’s attorney’s, however, argue that the definition does not include payments for hotel stays. They argue that the emoluments clause only bars payments to the president if they’re made in connection with services he provides in his official capacity.

 

The debate over the narrow vs. broad definition is expected to be on display when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in the case Tuesday.

 

Trump’s legal team is challenging a decision by a federal judge in Maryland to allow the lawsuit to go forward.

 

Judge Peter Messitte ruled in July that the attorneys general had made convincing arguments that the constitutional meaning of emoluments encompasses any profit, gain, or advantage. It was the first time a federal judge had interpreted the emoluments clause.

 

The 4th Circuit agreed to hear the unusual mid-case appeal. Trump’s lawyers are asking the court to overturn Messitte’s ruling that the attorney generals have standing to sue Trump.

 

Trump argues that as president, he has absolute immunity from the lawsuit. But Maryland and the District say that Trump’s alleged misconduct is unrelated to the functions of his office, so absolute immunity does not apply.

 

Before Trump was sued, the emoluments clause was a constitutional provision familiar mainly to constitutional scholars and law professors.

 

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine argue that Trump’s failure to divest himself of his business holdings — including the Trump International Hotel in Washington — put him in clear violation of the emoluments clause.

 

Frosh and Racine, both Democrats, say hotels in Maryland and Washington have been harmed because foreign and state government officials are more likely to stay at Trump’s hotel in an attempt to curry favor with the Republican president.

 

…more…

https://www.apnews.com/510fa3561b744551af051a21e3874ee4