Eve Levin  //  10/31/17  //  Topic Update

A secondary question lurks in the CREW v. Trump case: Is the Foreign Emoluments Clause a political question for Congress and not the courts? (Shugerblog).

  • Analysis of last week’s oral argument is here

The definition of “emolument” adopted by DOJ in ongoing emoluments clause litigation is confusing, suggests Andy Grewal at Notice and Comment. 

Reversing its position at oral argument in CREW v. Trump, the Department of Justice no longer concedes that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the president (Josh Blackman’s Blog).

Jeffrey Rosen, Josh Blackman, and Jed Shugerman examine President Trump’s alleged violation of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses (We The People).

Updates | The Week of January 22, 2018

1/28/18  //  Daily Update

A federal district judge in Maryland heard arguments in a case brought by several state attorneys general contending that President Trump's business interests violate the Emoluments Clause.

Update | The Week of November 27, 2017

12/4/17  //  Daily Update

Michael Flynn's work on behalf of the Turkish government figures into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign.

Jeffrey Stein

Columbia Law School

Updates | The Week of October 23, 2017

10/31/17  //  Daily Update

The DOJ reversed its prior concession that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. Oral arguments in the first Emoluments Clause challenge lingered on whether the issue is a nonjusticiable political question.