Take Care hereby presents its coverage of all emoluments issues & cases in a single post. We've organized our analysis into the following categories:
Brianne Gorod | 8/1/17
A trip to the National Archives turned up some fascinating evidence about Alexander Hamilton and foreign emoluments.
Brianne Gorod | 7/26/17
A major new white paper shows why the Domestic Emoluments Clause is a critically important provision in our Constitution.
John Mikhail 7/12/17
"DOJ’s historical definition of 'emolument' is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading."
Joshua Matz | 7/12/17
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.
Brianne Gorod | 7/6/17
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.
Jed Shugerman | 6/2/17
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.
Jed Shugerman | 5/31/17
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.”
Leah Litman | 7/11/17
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.
Zachary Clopton | 6/26/17
A new spin on questions of standing and justiciability at the heart of recent emoluments litigation.
Simon Stern | 6/21/17
Why DOJ's interpretation of "emolument" doesn't make sense as a matter of text or purpose.
Joshua Matz | 6/14/17
If recent events are any sign, the public will not stand idly by as Trump turns our nation into a banana republic.
Michael Dorf | 6/14/17
The last week saw important developments with respect to Donald Trump's ongoing confrontation with the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause.
Marty Lederman | 6/12/17
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.
Leah Litman | 6/12/17
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.
Richard Primus | 6/10/17
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.
Joshua Matz | 5/11/17
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.
Leah Litman | 4/28/17
The various ways that standing skeptics have distinguished cases supporting standing in CREW are unpersuasive.
Leah Litman | 4/27/17
Critics of the standing arguments in CREW v. Trump are defining the new plaintiffs’ injury in the wrong way.
Leah Litman | 4/26/17
Everyone should give a tip of the hat to the new plaintiffs in the CREW v. Trump lawsuit.
Take Care | 4/24/17
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.
Michael Dorf | 4/19/17
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.
Jon Taylor | 4/19/17
The additional plaintiffs in the CREW case unquestionably have standing.
Joshua Matz | 4/18/17
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.
Davd Fontana | 6/20/17
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.
Larry Tribe & Joshua Matz | 6/12/17
The constitutional arguments supporting state standing in this landmark Emoluments Clause case are exceptionally powerful.
Leah Litman | 6/12/17
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.
G. Michael Parsons | 7/10/17
Separation of powers principles strongly support standing in the Foreign Emoluments Clause suit filed by Members of Congress.
Brianne Gorod | 6/19/17
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.
Eric Segall | 6/24/17
Why the emoluments suit by 196 Members of Congress must be decided on the merits.
Brianne Gorod | 6/14/17
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.
Take Care | 6/13/17
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.
Joshua Matz | 5/25/17
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.
Take Care | 5/3/17
Tracking Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Administration
Brianne Gorod | 3/24/17
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.
Joshua Matz | 7/20/17
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
Jed Shugerman | 4/27/17
Analysis of a Reuters report that state pensions, run by state officers, are investing and paying public money to Trump LLCs