The Plaintiffs in CREW v. Trump Deserve To Have Their Claims Heard

8/14/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

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

Daniel Hemel

University of Chicago Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Punching Down From The Pulpit, And Other Unpresidential Positions

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.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Important Update on an Emoluments Case Against Trump

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.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

A Little More on Alexander Hamilton and the Foreign Emoluments Clause

8/1/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

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

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

All TC Analysis of Emoluments Issues & Cases

8/1/17  //  Latest Developments

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

Take Care

Conflict of Interest Isn’t a Game

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.

David Sklansky

Stanford Law School

New White Paper on Trump and the Domestic Emoluments Clause

7/26/17  //  Commentary

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

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

A New Front in the Emolument Wars

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

Joshua Matz

Publisher

The Definition of "Emolument" in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806

7/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

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

Take Care

Foreign Emoluments, Alexander Hamilton & A Twitter Kerfuffle

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.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

What It Means To Be Presidential: Litigating Positions

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.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Raines Check: Legislator Standing and the Separation of Powers

7/10/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

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

G. Michael Parsons

Private Practice

What Alexander Hamilton Really Said

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.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Emoluments and Justiciability

6/26/17  //  Commentary

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

Take Care

Members of Congress Have Standing in the Emoluments Suit

6/24/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

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

Take Care