Politics- A federal appeals court just ruled to revive a lawsuit from the Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia accusing
President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off of his Washington DC hotel. - In a 9-6 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Trump in the suit, which accuses the president of violating the foreign
emoluments clause of the Constitution by soliciting business from foreign governments at his hotel. - Now, Trump's lawyers will have to go to the US Supreme Court to seek an appeal of Thursday's decision, but there is no guarantee the high court will hear the case.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday to revive a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off of his hotel in Washington DC.
In a 9-6 decision, a full panel from the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against Trump in allowing a lawsuit to proceed that accuses the president of violating the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the US constitution by soliciting business from foreign officials and nationals at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.
Thursday's en banc decision reverses a July 2019 decision from a three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit that dismissed the suit on the grounds that the attorneys general did not have proper standing to sue.
Now, Trump's lawyers will have to go to the US Supreme Court to overturn Thursday's decision from the entire Fourth Circuit allowing the suit to proceed to discovery.
"We disagree with the decision of the Fourth Circuit. This case is another example of Presidential harassment. We will be seeking review at the Supreme Court," Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney to Trump, said in a text message to Insider.
While there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would hear Trump's appeal, other federal courts have ruled differently on similar lawsuits accusing Trump of emoluments clauses violations, laying the groundwork for a significant conflict among circuits that the high court may want to address.
In February of this year, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals moved to dismiss a similar lawsuit from 200 Democratic members of Congress accusing foreign spending at Trump properties of violating the foreign emoluments clause, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the suit.
But in September 2019, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York revived a separate lawsuit from watchdog group the Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) and some hotel and restaurant industry groups also accusing Trump of violating the foreign emoluments clause, reversing a district court judge's previous dismissal of the suit. The Justice Department has appealed that decision to the entire 2nd Circuit but there hasn't been any substantive movement on the request.
Even if the Supreme Court decided to take one or more emoluments cases it's unclear whether the issue would be fully resolved before the 2020 presidential election, especially considering that the DC and 2nd Circuits have been slower than the 4th Circuit to rule on the current emoluments-related lawsuits. A Trump loss in November could render the entire legal fight moot.
The domestic emoluments clause, located within Article II of the US Constitution, says the president "shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States," which could encompass any federal funds spent at a Trump property, for example.
And the "Nobility Clause" of the Constitution located in Article I, Section 9 decrees that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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."
While most presidents divest from their businesses and assets upon taking office or put them in a blind trust to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Trump has not done so. He still is the owner of the company, while the trust of his assets are managed by his sons Donald Jr. and Eric — both executive vice-presidents at the
One complicating factor to resolving questions surrounding whether Trump is violating the emoluments clause is that it largely hasn't been tested in court, and there is little to no precedent in court for a US president being sued over emoluments violations at all.
Last fall, Trump sparked controversy for suggesting that the US host the 2020 G7 summit at a Trump Organization property, the struggling Doral golf resort in Miami, which would have required a number of foreign leaders and their staff to directly pay the Trump Organization.
At the time, a number of legal experts told Insider that such a decision would almost certainly violate the foreign emoluments clause of the constitution, which Trump called "phony."
Read the original article on Business Insider