// 6/18/17 //
Take Care provides an ongoing update on corruption and conflicts.
Last Friday, the Government filed a memo in support of its motion to dismiss in the emoluments case Trump v. Crew (Bloomberg Politics, The Guardian, NYT, WaPo, WSJ).
- The memo can be found here.
- The Government is arguing that foreign payments to President Trump’s businesses are legally permitted, reports Jonathan O’Connell (WaPo).
- At Take Care, Richard Primus analyzes the Government’s motion to dismiss.
- At Politico, Joshua Zeitz writes that the Justice Department’s arguments are historically illiterate.
The Government’s brief in CREW v. Trump reveals that President Trump is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, argues Marty Lederman at Take Care.
- Also at Take Care, Leah Litman notes that the Justice Department’s brief blurs the distinction between the President’s role as a businessman and as the President.
President Trump is ushering in a kleptocracy; that’s why he’s being sued, argued Joshua Matz at Take Care.
On Monday, Maryland and the District of Columbia filed lawsuits against President Trump, alleging violations of the Emoluments Clauses (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, ABA Journal).
- At Take Care, Laurence H. Tribe and Joshua Matz explain how Maryland and D.C. have standing to pursue their claims against President Trump.
- Also at Take Care, Leah Litman analyzes a new standing theory for emoluments cases introduced in the suit.
- The government has become the ultimate extension of President Trump’s for-profit brand, writes Naomi Klein at The Intercept.
The President’s business interests may ultimately be his greatest vulnerability in the emoluments cases, writes Andrew Rice (NY Magazine).
196 Members of Congress filed suit against President Trump for violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (WaPo).
- This page offers access to key documents and resources
- Mark Joseph Stern analyzes the merits of the three ongoing emoluments clause lawsuits (by Congressional Democrats, by Maryland and the District of Columbia, and by a group of individual plaintiffs) in Slate.
- At Cato@Liberty, Ilya Shapiro argues that the ongoing emoluments clause lawsuits are frivolous.
- History and standing are difficult barriers for the emoluments cases to overcome, even after DC and Maryland join the fray, argues Eugene Kontorovich at Volokh Conspiracy.
"[T]he latest lawsuit invoking the emoluments clause may be the most powerful if only because it demonstrates the degree to which Trump and the GOP-led Congress dismiss the plain language of the Constitution they swear to uphold," explains Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post.
"The emoluments litigation has already put Trump on the defensive and forced his lawyers to justify presidential enrichment; it now poses a real threat of unveiling his secretive business dealings as well." So concludes Mark Joseph Stern (Slate).
President Trump's emoluments troubles only continue to mount, argue Steve Mazie and Elizabeth Winkler (Economist).
The NYT Editorial Board weighs in, concluding that "Mr. Trump’s callous disregard for ethical norms is exactly the attitude that the founders sought to protect the country against, through the emoluments clauses they put into the Constitution."