[ad_1]
The order was made without comment or dissent.
There were two cases dealing with the matter before the judges. One was started by lawyers in Maryland and Washington, DC, who argued that Trump violated the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments through the Trump International Hotel in DC. They said they were at a disadvantage in competing for business from foreign and state officials who might choose to do business with entities in which the president had a financial interest in order to gain favor.
A second case was brought by various members of the hospitality industry who own or work in hotels or restaurants in New York and Washington, who also argued that they were at a competitive disadvantage.
“I am proud of the work we have done to ensure that the anti-corruption standards of the Constitution are not forgotten,” he wrote.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics group in Washington, which participated in the cases against Trump, said on Monday that the lawsuits “had educated the American people for four years about the pervasive corruption of a president who maintained a global business and benefits and payments foreign and national governments. “
“Only Trump lost the presidency and stepped down, ended these corrupt constitutional violations, ended these revolutionary lawsuits,” Noah Bookbinder, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.
At the center of the case was the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which has received little judicial interpretation since it was drafted nearly 250 years ago.
The emoluments clause prohibits a president from receiving an “emolument” or profit from any “king, prince or foreign state” unless Congress consents. The so-called national emoluments clause gives a president the right to receive a salary and benefits fixed in advance by Congress, but prohibits him from receiving “any other emolument from the United States.”
“The Supreme Court’s procedural order not only erases two lower court decisions, but it also orders the entire dispute to be dismissed – leaving for another time the resolution of the many questions raised by Trump on the Clause of emoluments, “said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court Analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School.
“Usually, the court only takes such a step when the dominant party brings a case while the appeal is pending – as opposed to here, where disputes have become moot because Trump’s tenure has ended,” he added. “Today’s orders suggest that the court is increasingly willing to invoke this doctrine to avoid highly charged political disputes, even if the mootness was not caused by the parties that won below.
A lower court had authorized 38 subpoenas that were served on five federal agencies that demanded information about money spent by those agencies at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.
In court documents, attorneys for Trump’s Justice Department argued that the lower court in the Maryland and DC case “had fundamentally erred in allowing this unprecedented and extraordinary trial to continue.” and characterized the alleged damage as “mitigated and speculative”.
DC Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a joint statement Monday that their case “will serve as a precedent that will help prevent anyone from using the presidency or other federal office for any purpose. personal financial gain as President Trump has done for the past four years. ”
“(Trump) still has the money. When another federal employee violates the emoluments clause, he has to forfeit the money,” Shaub wrote.
This story has been updated with additional details and feedback.
[ad_2]
Source link