A federal judge ruled that 200 Democratic congressional members had the legal right to sue President Donald Trump for alleged violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause when dealing with foreign governments during their tenure.

The fee clause prohibits presidents from accepting gifts of foreign and domestic interests without the consent of the Congress.

The case argues that the president has received favors from foreign governments, such as Chinese government trademarks for his companies, payments for hotel rooms and the rental of event spaces by representatives from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as products from the purchase of offices by the Chinese or Emirati government space in the asset tower.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court said Friday that the lawmakers had sufficiently demonstrated that they had been harmed by the presumed breach of the clause by the president.

"This is a dazzling victory that allows us to hold the president accountable for violating the main ban on corruption in the US Constitution," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, at the news conference. Associated Press agency. "President Trump has repeatedly violated him with impunity and now we, as members, have to hold him accountable."

Elizabeth Wydra, Lawyer for Democratic Legislators and President of the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center who has argued the case in court, said that "by recognizing that members of Congress have the right to to sue, the court has proven to everyone today in America that no one is above the law, not even the president. "

This was the second decision by a Federal Court judge to advance such unprecedented constitutional proceedings against Trump.

The issue is Trump's refusal to provide Congress with details of these financial transactions or to seek congressional permission to conduct them.

Trump's argument is that the transactions do not meet the definition of "emoluments" of the founding fathers, because they are commercial transactions and not gains. But Democratic members of Congress said the president had actually canceled their votes by giving them nothing to vote on.

The decision, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, indicates that the plaintiffs case can be continued.

"Clause requires the president to ask Congress before accepting a banned foreign fee," Sullivan wrote. If the Democrats' allegations are true, he wrote, then "the President accepts the banned foreign emoluments without asking, and without receiving a favorable response from Congress."

However, the judge has not yet ruled on the merits of the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss, particularly as to whether the definition of "emolument" was broad enough to include a foreign embassy. paying the president to rent a ballroom in a hotel.

The Department of Justice, which represents Trump in this case, said in a statement that he would continue to defend himself.

"We think this case should be closed," said Kelly Laco, a spokeswoman for the ministry, "and we will continue to defend the president in court."

The case of the District of Columbia is one of three cases where the president violates the emoluments clause, but this case is remarkable because the plaintiffs – members of Congress – are mentioned in the clause itself.

In a separate case, US District Judge Peter J. Messitte ruled in July that the lawsuit over the Maryland federal court's compensation clause could sue Trump. This case, however, only concerns Trump's revenue from the Trump International Hotel, which opened in Washington in September 2016.

The case has passed the stage of legal discovery. The Ministry of Justice, however, has requested an appeal in this case and that all proceedings be stayed until the decision of the court of appeal.

Contributor: Associated Press

Read or share this story: https://usat.ly/2NRGJT2