[ad_1]
This sparked a heated debate over a provision of the Constitution that most lawyers knew little about and lay people could not pronounce: the emoluments clause.
The court’s action raises the question of how the judges will handle a myriad of other lawsuits and disputes involving the now-former president, and whether Trump’s side can prevail simply because he has run out of time and courts have allowed him to do so.
A fee case was originally brought by lawyers in Washington, DC and Maryland, who argued that Trump violated the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments through the Trump International Hotel. Another was brought up by various members of the hospitality industry who own or work in hotels and restaurants who argued that they were also at a competitive disadvantage because Trump had not used blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead continued to retain an interest in his businesses. .
In dismissing the lawsuits on Monday, no judge noted any dissent suggesting they all believed there were no more cases or controversy pending because Trump was no longer in power.
Although the case at issue has died and the appeals court opinions against the president have been quashed, DC Attorney General Karl Racine, who was behind one of the challenges, said that all was not lost on his side.
“Our lawsuit has shown for the first time that emolument clauses, centuries-old anti-corruption protections enshrined in the Constitution, can be enforced and that these clauses mean that federal officials cannot agree to anything. either of value from foreign or national governments, “Racine said.
“The Supreme Court ruling,” he added, which erased an appeals court opinion, “did not disrupt historic district court decisions setting this critical precedent.”
But still, subpoenas that would have been brought forward to explore some of Trump’s financial dealings will no longer go forward.
Whether the judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson, was right, is now an open question pending a similar dispute that may never arise.
Trump Twitter Account
Judges have yet to rule on a case over whether Trump violated the First Amendment in 2017 when he blocked followers on his Twitter account. Just before stepping down, Trump’s Justice Department argued that the dispute should be seen as moot and that a lower court opinion that went against Trump should be erased under the same legal doctrine that the court cited in quashing the emoluments cases.
But Arnold & Porter’s John Elwood, who appears frequently before the Supreme Court, suggested in his own Twitter thread that even without Trump in office (or even on Twitter at this point), the court might choose not to overturn the lower court opinion that went against Trump because President Joe Biden also has a personal account. Elwood suggested there might still be a case or controversy at play as it impacts other government officials and the judges could leave the lower court opinion that was against Trump on the books.
“In view of the unresolved issues, [there] maybe some reluctance to leave [the] Executive branch eliminates unfavorable precedent, ”Elwood tweeted.
Future presidents, of course, will likely have Twitter and other social media accounts.
Katie Fallow, an attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute who sued Trump, also said the case was moot. But she made that argument based on the fact that Trump’s “repeated violations” of Twitter’s terms of service led the company to ultimately shut down its account. She told judges in a case that they should not overturn the appeal court’s decision.
“Here, the public interest in preventing impermissible point-of-view discrimination in government-run social media accounts weighs heavily in favor of upholding the Second Circuit ruling,” Fallow wrote in court documents.
The court also did not act on cases on Monday regarding Trump’s policies on immigration and abortion removals, among others. These fall into a different category, as the Biden administration can overrule existing rules and regulations.
But a high-profile case the judges have been sitting on since October concerns a crucial issue for Trump. His personal attorneys have asked the judges to suspend an opinion from a lower court that allowed a subpoena for his tax cases in an investigation by a New York prosecutor. The judges haven’t said anything so far, and now Trump is no longer in the White House. The court could have acted while Trump was president, but chose not to.
Has Trump managed to beat the clock? He may have passed a clock, but the judges are well aware of something else. The Manhattan District Attorney may ultimately override his goal of obtaining the documents now that Trump is simply an ordinary citizen.
[ad_2]
Source link