4/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Here are the steps Congress can (and should) take to review the President's tax returns as expeditiously as possible

10/3/18  //  Commentary

On Friday, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the plaintiffs in Blumenthal, Nadler, et al. v. Trump have standing to sue the President for violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

7/26/18  //  Quick Reactions

The recent opinion allowing the plaintiffs' emoluments claims to go forward comports with recent suggestions about separating this President from the office of the Presidency.

6/14/18  //  Commentary

On this week's special live episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason share the stage at the ACS National Convention in Washington, DC with Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and Stanford Law's Pamela Karlan. They discussed several important cases brought by states against the Trump Administration as well as the broader federalism issues presented by Democratic Attorneys General being involved in so many lawsuits against the federal government. Listen now!

5/2/18  //  Commentary

Supported by powerful amicus briefs, the plaintiffs in CREW v. Trump have urged the Second Circuit to hold that their claims must be decided on the merits

4/12/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie revisit two lawsuits in which the Plaintiffs have recently successfully fought off motions to dismiss and been allowed to proceed. And in a new installment of "Sanctions Corner with Uncle Charlie," Charlie answers questions about the FBI raid on the office of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Listen now!

1/28/18  //  Daily Update

A federal district judge in Maryland heard arguments in a case brought by several state attorneys general contending that President Trump's business interests violate the Emoluments Clause.

12/4/17  //  Daily Update

Michael Flynn's work on behalf of the Turkish government figures into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign.

10/31/17  //  Daily Update

The DOJ reversed its prior concession that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. Oral arguments in the first Emoluments Clause challenge lingered on whether the issue is a nonjusticiable political question.

10/21/17  //  Daily Update

The DOJ could argue that the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to elected officials such as the president. Arguments in CREW v. Trump, a challenge to President Trump's receipt of emoluments, began in the Southern District of New York.

10/8/17  //  Daily Update

Historians corrected an amicus brief in the SDNY Emoluments Clause case and issued an apology for the error.

10/1/17  //  Daily Update

Legal commentary continued over whether the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. The DOJ offered a new, narrower definition of an "emolument."

3/24/17  //  Quick Reactions

Yesterday, the General Services Agency surprised experts by declaring that the Trump Hotel in D.C. is not in violation of its lease. But the GSA's decision itself might well violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

7/28/17  //  Commentary

When Trump makes claims about conflicts of interest without any reference to the applicable rules, he's just shooting squid ink.

5/11/17  //  Latest Developments

Yesterday, CREW again amended its complaint alleging that President Trump has violated the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Notably, CREW added another plaintiff: Eric Goode, the owner of several famous hotels, restaurants, bars and event spaces in New York.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The most remarkable thing about DOJ’s brief is that its conclusion doesn't follow from its own explanation of the meaning of the term “emolument,” nor, for that matter, from any of DOJ’s analysis. To the contrary, DOJ’s account of the Clause, and of the meaning of the term “emolument,” actually demonstrates that the President is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, at least with respect to some of the conduct alleged in the CREW complaint.

11/16/17  //  Commentary

On Tuesday, we and 18 other law professors submitted an amicus brief in federal district court arguing that the District of Columbia and Maryland have standing to pursue their constitutional claims.

4/20/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care is pleased to announce the release of "Versus Trump," a new, affiliated podcast about the ways that the Trump Administration is breaking the law—and what people are doing about it.

4/19/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The additional plaintiffs in the CREW case unquestionably have standing.

7/26/17  //  Commentary

A major new white paper shows why the Domestic Emoluments Clause is a critically important provision in our Constitution.

6/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

An updated quarterly report on instances in which there are credible allegations of President Trump, his family, and his close associates exploiting their public power for private gain.

1/4/18  //  Uncategorized

On the first episode of Versus Trump of 2018, Jason and Charlie look back at Versus Trump cases in 2017 and score them as Administration wins, losses, or not-yet-decided. They also look ahead at big issues to come in 2018. Listen now!

5/3/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Tracking Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Administration

7/11/17  //  Commentary

Jane Chong questioned whether the administration's “self-interested [legal] stance" in the cases about the emoluments clauses "is ... fundamentally at odds with the trust that the office [of the President] confers.” It's worth asking the same about the administration's litigating position on the scope of the injunction against the entry ban.

8/14/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Our amicus brief explains why the Justice Department’s jurisdictional arguments miss the mark

6/14/17  //  Commentary

Today, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Representative John Conyers, and 194 other members of Congress have gone to federal court seeking to put an end to the President’s willful violations of the Constitution.

7/20/17  //  Commentary

If the people of this nation want a president who acts unclouded by private financial benefits, they must step up and insist that their officials not pay illegal emoluments to Trump in the first place

6/12/17  //  Commentary

In a new lawsuit, Maryland and D.C. allege that the President's violations of the Emoluments Clauses harm their sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. Those interests get special solicitude in federal court.

12/22/17  //  Quick Reactions

We offer a few quick reactions to yesterday's opinion dismissing one of the emoluments cases on standing grounds.

6/19/17  //  Commentary

It is perfectly consistent to think the House lacks standing in House v. Price, but that members of Congress have standing to sue for Foreign Emoluments Clause violations.

6/14/17  //  Commentary

If recent events are any sign, the public will not stand idly by as Trump turns our nation into a banana republic.

7/6/17  //  Commentary

For good reason, nearly everyone agrees that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. And the main contrary argument rests on a misreading of the historical record.

8/5/17  //  Latest Developments

Late last night, the plaintiffs in CREW v. Trump filed their brief opposing President Trump's motion to dismiss the case.

12/27/17  //  Commentary

I did not expect that a federal district judge would simply fail to apply the law that currently binds him. Yet that's more or less what Judge Daniels did in dismissing the CREW emoluments case.

6/14/17  //  Commentary

The last week saw important developments with respect to Donald Trump's ongoing confrontation with the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause.

7/10/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Separation of powers principles strongly support standing in the Foreign Emoluments Clause suit filed by Members of Congress.

6/12/17  //  Quick Reactions

The government's motion to dismiss alternately characterizes CREW's lawsuit as a case involving "official action" and a case involving solely a private "business venture." The different descriptions go to the core of CREW's lawsuit, which is that given the President's business affairs, we don't know when he's acting as President or as a businessman.

8/31/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The amicus brief filed by Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman has some serious problems with how it represents its historical sources.

6/26/17  //  Commentary

Zachary Clopton offers a new spin on questions of standing and justiciability at the heart of recent emoluments litigation.

4/27/17  //  Quick Reactions

Professor Jed Shugerman analyzes a Reuters report that state pensions, run by state officers, are investing and paying public money to Trump LLCs

6/21/17  //  Commentary

Simon Stern explains why DOJ's interpretation of "emolument" doesn't make sense as a matter of text or purpose.

4/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

Everyone should give a tip of the hat to the new plaintiffs in the CREW v. Trump lawsuit.

7/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Last week, Brianne Gorod strongly refuted the claim that Alexander Hamilton thought presidents are free to accept foreign emoluments. Her post sparked a bout of criticism on Twitter. But that criticism is weak even on its own limited terms—and should not obscure Brianne's vital contribution to a debate of surpassing national importance.

7/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

John Mikhail demonstrates that "DOJ’s historical definition of 'emolument' is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading."

6/20/17  //  Commentary

The recent DC/Maryland emoluments case reflects a truth known to the Framers: jurisdictions geographically closer to the national capital would have a different relationship with federal power.

4/24/17  //  Commentary

Matthew Stephenson (Harvard Law School) analyzes CREW's emoluments clause lawsuit against President Trump, discussing the recent addition of two plaintiffs and the likely course ahead.

5/31/17  //  Commentary

By Jed Shugerman: Trump’s lawyers have argued that the original public meaning of “emolument” was “payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office.” But recent research by John Mikhail into Blackstone's Commentaries shows that emoluments are not limited to “office related payments.”

8/1/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

A trip to the National Archives turned up some fascinating evidence about Alexander Hamilton and foreign emoluments.

6/2/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

George Washington’s effort to keep some of his land dealings quiet at least suggests he understood they were politically, legally, and maybe constitutionally problematic.

8/1/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care presents an organized guide to our coverage of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

4/27/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Critics of the standing arguments in CREW v. Trump are defining the new plaintiffs’ injury in the wrong way.

4/19/17  //  Commentary

CREW has amended its complaint in the widely-watched emoluments case. The addition of two new plaintiffs should make the lawsuit bulletproof on standing grounds.

12/26/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Judge Daniels's opinion dismissing CREW's emoluments case makes profound errors in assessing 'zone of interests' and the political question doctrine. These errors are so grave that they cast doubt on the whole opinion.

5/25/17  //  Commentary

Trump's widely-touted plan to comply with the Foreign Emoluments Clause has always been inadequate and riddled with tough questions. Now we have answers to some of those questions—and they confirm that Trump's hotel-related violations will persist unabated.

3/14/18  //  Commentary

The right thing to do would be for President Trump to obey the Constitution, and this donation doesn’t begin to satisfy that obligation.

9/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's reply brief in CREW v. Trump offers a new (and flawed) definition of 'emoluments'

6/24/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Eric Segall explains why the emoluments suit by 196 Members of Congress must be decided on the merits.

8/8/17  //  Commentary

The President’s litigation positions underscore how he views his office as a license to beat up on persons with less power.

4/20/17  //  Commentary

"A New Sheriff In Town" + Zephyr Teachout

4/28/17  //  Commentary

The various ways that standing skeptics have distinguished cases supporting standing in CREW are unpersuasive.

11/9/17  //  Latest Developments

Updated on a case against the President for his violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clauses.

4/18/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

NYT has leaked one of DOJ's theories in the emoluments clause case: that this is a "political question." Any such argument, however, would be exceptionally weak as a matter of text, precedent, and purpose, and would completely invert the basic operation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The constitutional arguments supporting state standing in this landmark Emoluments Clause case are exceptionally powerful.

6/10/17  //  Quick Reactions

Here’s a brief note on two things that struck me on a quick read of the government’s motion to dismiss in CREW v. Trump, filed yesterday. The first is about Mississippi v. Johnson, which the government cites as limiting the power of courts to grant injunctions against the President. The second is about the government’s more general claim that the only proper relief for an emoluments violation is political rather than judicial.

4/30/17  //  Daily Update

This week, Leah Litman continued her series of posts on "standing" in the CREW emoluments lawsuit. Further conflicts of interests drew attention as the Trump Administration announced its tax plan.

6/18/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump is ushering in a kleptocracy, that's why he's being sued. So argues Joshua Matz in Take Care as the cases against President Trump's violations of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses mount.

5/14/17  //  Daily Update

CREW added another plaintiff to its Emoluments Clause lawsuit, potentially strengthening the case for standing.

6/11/17  //  Daily Update

Allegations of impropriety under the Emoluments Clause continue to swirl around President Trump, particularly in response to recent announcements of new America-themed Trump hotels.

6/4/17  //  Daily Update

The CREW Emoluments Clause lawsuit added a New York hotel owner, and law professors argue that Blackstone interpreted "emolument" broadly.

4/9/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump has pledged to donate his first quarter salary to the National Park Service. States are considering regulating access to ballots based on financial disclosure.

8/20/17  //  Daily Update

The plaintiffs in the Emoluments cases must clear several hurdles to get an adjudication on the merits.

3/26/17  //  Daily Update

While Judge Neil Gorsuch did not reveal his views on President Trump and the Emoluments Clause this week, we saw analysis both of President Trump's domestic emoluments and of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

5/7/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump's business ties raise questions about his domestic and foreign policies.

7/9/17  //  Daily Update

Commentary continued on the application of the Foreign Emoluments Clause to the President.

8/6/17  //  Daily Update

Commentary continues on President Trump's possible violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses.

4/23/17  //  Daily Update

People across the country have protested demanding to see President Trump's tax returns. The CREW's emoluments suit has progressed with the addition of two new plaintiffs who have made the case stronger.

6/25/17  //  Daily Update

D.C. and Maryland are uniquely positioned in their suit against the President for his violations of the Emoluments Clause.

4/9/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump pledged to donate his first quarter salary to the National Park Service. Questions have arisen over whether states can regulate access to ballots based on financial disclosure.

8/27/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump’s brand is in decline following his sharply criticized remarks on violence in Charlottesville. Senator Blumenthal’s emoluments suit may suffer from too broad a reading of prohibited emoluments.

7/30/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump will likely violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause, if he hasn't already. And a construction a lawyer in West Palm Beach, Florida has filed another emoluments clause suit against the president.

4/2/17  //  Daily Update

President Trump's personal and family business connections continue to raise the specter of unconstitutional corruption.

7/16/17  //  Daily Update

While some argue that the President may accept gifts without running afoul of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, critics view this reading as inaccurate and ahistorical. Dismissing the Emoluments Clause litigation for lack of standing would deviate from separation-of-powers principles.

7/30/17  //  Daily Update

Commentary continued on the President's alleged violations of the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

6/25/17  //  Daily Update

Simon Stern, on Take Care, argues that the Administration's interpretation of "emolument" conflicts with the Founders' vision.