Lawsuit accusing Trump of violating Constitution gets hostile reception

RICHMOND — A federal appeals court panel was indisputably hostile Tuesday to a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by profiting from his business dealings with foreign countries seeking to curry favor with his administration. The uphill battle the suit faces was evident before the arguments even began Tuesday morning when it was revealed that all three 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judges assigned to the case are GOP appointees, including two of the court’s most conservative jurists. One of those judges suggested that the suit could be a precursor to attempting to drive the president from office through impeachment. And two of the judges came close to accusing the Maryland-based district court judge handling the suit, Clinton-appointee Peter Messitte, of impropriety for trying to engineer the challenge rather than responding to legal issues presented to him by the officials who brought the suit: the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C.

The arguments in the so-called foreign emoluments case test largely uncharted areas of constitutional law, but also serve as a reminder of the numerous ethical challenges Trump’s administration has faced, with a series of Cabinet members departing under clouds of scandal. Maryland and D.C. jointly brought the emoluments case in 2017. Of the three appeals judges who heard more than two hours of arguments Tuesday, Judge Dennis Shedd sounded most skeptical about the case, challenging lawyers for D.C. and Maryland at every turn. Shedd pressed D.C. Solicitor General Loren AliKhan on what her office was looking to get out of the suit beyond a declaration that Trump is breaking the law.

“Do you think that will be a basis for a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment?” asked Shedd, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “I don’t,” AliKhan replied. “If he then said — a little reminiscent of the travel ban — no foreigners can stay in any of my properties, how long before the State of Maryland would sue him for discrimination?” the judge asked. “What you want to do is make it a guessing game for him.”

Judge Paul Niemeyer called Messitte's handling of the case in the lower court “very peculiar.” Niemeyer noted that the district judge suggested early in the case that D.C. and Maryland might need to name the president personally as a defendant, rather than just in his official capacity as president. They then did that. Later, Messitte inquired about dismissing the president personally from the suit and the plaintiffs soon did that. “It sounds like the court was doing something beyond just responding to the parties,” said Niemeyer, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. “Does that not look like the district court is somehow involved in guiding this?” Shedd asked. “It looks a little bit odd.” Shedd also ridiculed Maryland’s argument that Trump’s actions were undermining the basic terms under which the state agreed to join the union in 1788. “I hope that if the courts disagree with you, you’re not thinking about seceding from the union, are you?” Shedd asked. “I confess, I am from the District of Columbia, so I don’t think I’d be allowed to secede,” AliKhan said. “Well, I don‘t know, some people might let you,” Shedd quipped.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-1226687