\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

whatever happened to that emoluments clause lawsuit?

...
Snowy public bath half-breed
  11/17/17
RUSSIA
Henna razzle-dazzle azn
  11/17/17
bye felicia. actually there are a few more of those suits bo...
comical hairless orchestra pit
  12/22/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: November 17th, 2017 3:13 PM
Author: Snowy public bath half-breed



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800814&forum_id=2#34711163)



Reply Favorite

Date: November 17th, 2017 3:16 PM
Author: Henna razzle-dazzle azn

RUSSIA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800814&forum_id=2#34711195)



Reply Favorite

Date: December 22nd, 2017 10:19 AM
Author: comical hairless orchestra pit

bye felicia. actually there are a few more of those suits bouncing around but they're bullshit and will die.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/us/politics/trump-suit-constitution-business.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=66252185&pgtype=article&_r=0

Judge Dismisses Suit Against Trump Over Business Dealings

By SHARON LaFRANIEREDEC. 21, 2017

WASHINGTON — In a legal victory for the Trump administration, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Thursday that accused President Trump of violating the Constitution by continuing to own and profit from his business empire.

The complaint, filed this year in the Southern District of New York, said that Mr. Trump’s failure to divorce himself from his businesses had harmed companies or workers who compete against his restaurants or hotels in New York or Washington. By taking advantage of his official position, the lawsuit said, Mr. Trump violated clauses of the Constitution that prohibit a president from accepting any government-bestowed benefits, or emoluments, either at home or abroad.

Judge George B. Daniels of United States District Court in Manhattan found that the plaintiffs had failed to show that they had suffered as a result of specific actions by Mr. Trump intended to drum up business for his enterprises. Even before Mr. Trump took office, the judge said, “he had amassed wealth and fame and was competing against” the plaintiffs.

“It is only natural that interest in his properties has generally increased since he became president,” the judge said. Moreover, Judge Daniels said, customers might be patronizing Mr. Trump’s hotels and his hotels’ restaurants because of price or quality — reasons totally unrelated to his presidency.

Beyond that, the judge found, the emoluments clauses of the Constitution are intended to protect the country against presidential corruption from foreign influences or financial incentives that might be offered by either states or the federal government. They were not meant to protect businesses from competition from presidentially owned enterprises, he ruled.

Were that the case, Judge Daniels said, the Constitution would not have given Congress the power to allow a president to receive a foreign gift or benefit without considering how the president’s business rivals might be affected.

Judge Daniels also said that it was up to Congress, not the courts, to decide whether Mr. Trump had violated the Constitution by accepting a gift or benefit from a foreign government.

“This court will not tell Congress how it should or should not assert its power in responding the defendant’s alleged violations of the foreign Emoluments Clause,” he wrote. “In short, unless and until Congress speaks on this issue, plaintiffs’ foreign Emoluments Clause claims are not ripe for adjudication.”

In a statement, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit legal watchdog group that initiated the lawsuit, called the ruling “a setback.” But Noah Bookbinder, the organization’s executive director, said, “We will not walk away from this serious and ongoing constitutional violation.”

The ruling is believed to be the first in 230 years interpreting what the constitutional framers meant by the emoluments clauses.

Two other lawsuits accusing Mr. Trump of similar violations are still pending. They claim Mr. Trump has illegally profiteered from his businesses in a number of ways, including accepting payments from foreign officials who patronize his hotels and accepting trademark approvals from foreign governments for his company’s goods and services.

The suits are part of a coordinated effort by critics of the president to force Mr. Trump to either sell his business holdings or place them in a blind trust. Mr. Trump’s opponents hope that at least one case will proceed to a stage where plaintiffs will be allowed to demand documentation of Mr. Trump’s finances, including his tax returns.

A lawsuit brought in June by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia accused Mr. Trump of depriving facilities owned by their governments of business. Some legal experts have suggested that case may be less likely to be dismissed out of hand because Maryland is considered a “coequal sovereign” of the president, giving it stronger legal grounds to sue.

The third federal lawsuit was filed in June by nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress. Some legal authorities consider that suit to be a purely political move, with little likelihood of success.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800814&forum_id=2#34983537)