//  6/14/17  //  Commentary

This morning I published an op-ed in The Guardian discussing Emoluments Clause lawsuits filed by CREW, DC & Maryland, and 196 Members of Congress.  I touch on both standing and merits issues, and set the cases in a broader framework.

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

When President Donald Trump announced his Muslim Ban on January 27, pandemonium erupted. Lawyers everywhere raced to airports. Galvanized by Trump’s threat to liberty, they rapidly assembled legal theories and commenced a still-unbroken siege of Trump’s bigoted policy. As attorneys stockpiled caffeine, the American people rallied by moonlight outside terminals and federal courts.

The legal response to Trump’s Emoluments Clause violations has taken shape more slowly. And understandably so. Until recently, most Americans had never heard of “emoluments.” Only in the past few months – aided by creative public artand a high-profile lawsuit – has the public come to appreciate that Trump’s conflicts are forbidden by the Constitution.

It’s no coincidence that this arcane issue has newfound salience. We’re now witnessing kleptocracy on an unprecedented scale in America. And there’s barely even a fig leaf of cover. Trump has openly enmeshed his private financial interests in national policy. To say that this creates an appearance of corruption would be far too polite. This is the real deal: sketchy dealings all the way down.

Until recently, a rough bipartisan consensus would have thwarted such open corruption. But it’s now clear that the Republican Party has made a deal with the Devil, trading integrity (their own and the government’s) for a shot at long-held dreams. Surprising nobody, the Devil is already far ahead in this stupid, crooked bargain.

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

You can read the full op-ed here.


Versus Trump: Can You Hear The Whistle Blowing?

9/25/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the legal stakes of the fight over what Trump said to the President of Ukraine and the related whistleblower complaint. A lot happened between when they recorded the episode and when it's being posted, but we still think it's a useful primer on the legal questions in this dispute. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

The House Ways and Means Committee Has Standing to Seek Trump's Tax Returns

9/23/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

If the House Ways and Means Committee lacked Article III standing, then the House’s subpoena power would be gutted, and the Executive Branch could defy valid congressional process with impunity

Laurence H. Tribe

Harvard Law School

SCOTUS Needs to Rein in Lower Courts Willing to Force Its Hand by Defying Its Precedent

9/19/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

By David Strauss: Ideological lower court judges have challenged the Supreme Court by defying its precedent. There is one way for the Court to keep from being put in this position time and again. It should summarily reverse, making clear that only the Court will decide when its own precedent is no longer good law.

Take Care