Take Care  //  4/23/17  //  Topic Update

People around the country protested on Saturday, demanding to see President Trump’s tax returns (NYT, WaPo, WSJ).

• Trump’s continuing refusal to release his tax returns has prompted doubts about his entire presidency, writes Kylie Toscano (CREW).
• Jonathan H. Adler questions whether states can force President Trump to released his tax returns (WaPo). 

The Emoluments suit could force President Trump to finally reveal his tax returns, notes Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post).

• But the tax returns would present an incomplete picture of the President’s financial dealings (NPR).
• Neil Buchanan (Dorf on Law) suggests Democrats can score political points by refusing to negotiate on the President’s promised tax reforms unless he releases his own taxes.

Private citizens challenging President Trump in emoluments suits could have standing under Akins v. FEC, writes Jed Shugerman (Shugerblog).

The amended complaint in CREW’s Emoluments Clause suit adds two new plaintiffs claiming President Trump’s foreign interests have cost them business (Bloomberg, NYT, The Hill,  CREW).

• The amended complaint can be found here.
• DOJ's claim that this is a political question unfit for federal courts is wrong, argues Joshua Matz at Take Care.  
• The plaintiffs can show an actual harm, strengthening their standing arguments, explains Jed Shugerman at Shugerblog.
• But the new plaintiffs may also add new standing issues, suggests Andrew Hessick at Notice & Comment.
• The amended complaint includes allegations relating to Trump's Chinese trademark (The Hill).
• Celebrity chef Tom Colicchio is now part of the emoluments litigation (NY Post).

Jonathan Taylor writes for Take Care that there is unquestionably standing in CREW’s Emoluments Clause suit after the addition of two new plaintiffs.

• Michael Dorf, also writing for Take Care, agrees.
• Steven Schwinn at Constitutional Law Prof Blog says the addition of the plaintiffs almost surely satisfies Article III requirements.
• Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy still thinks the suit has standing problems.

The case for standing in the CREW Emoluments suit against President Trump is much stronger now, but not without issues, writes Matthew Stephenson (Global Anticorruption Blog).

President Trump claims his growing hotel empire presents no ethical conflicts of interest, but a failed deal in Georgia indicates some business partners are unconvinced (Forbes).

Ivanka Trump’s continued business dealings abroad may also violate the Emoluments Clause (NYT).

Ivanka Trump will donate $100,000 of a forthcoming book advance to charity and forgo a planned book tour, assuaging ethics concerns (NYT; Politico).

The administration’s decision on Exxon’s requested waiver from Russian sanctions should be a “no-brainer,” says Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY): “an unequivocal no” (The Hill).

Tags: