Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution on technical grounds.
In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the members of Congress did not have legal standing to bring suit against the president for violating the clause, which bars federal officials from collecting payments from foreign governments without approval of Congress.
In their unsigned ruling, the judges cited Supreme Court precedent, noting the 215 lawmakers on the suit are not the majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed suit as a majority. "[O]nly an institution can assert an institutional injury," the ruling says.
"Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the members — 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives — do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments," the decision says.
Democratic senators and House members argued the president frequently violates the rule with his businesses, including a Washington, D.C. hotel that's popular with foreign government officials.
The constitutional clause at issue in the lawsuit reads , "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
Trump told reporters on the White House lawn that the suit was "another phony case."
"It was a total win," he said.
In their decision, the judges suggested the lawmakers press their case in the court of public opinion.
"The members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the president himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit. But we will not — indeed we cannot — participate in this debate," the judges said.
The decision caps a good week for Trump. On Wednesday, he was acquitted on charges of abusing his power and obstruction Congress at his Senate impeachment trial.
Two other emolument-related cases are still pending in the courts.
Tags
Who is online
523 visitors
And the shyte keeps flowing.
Dems/Libs need to understand that their pollution overflow relief valve is broken and they don't have the expertise to fix it.
I guess we could say the President has been on a roll this week!
There's got to be some Dems chewing bile on this one!
Seems like the Democrats are having a terrible, no-good, horrible week or two.
Awww.
They've had a bad 4 years.
Let’s make it 8!
Yeah, ain't it cool?
Well, that was productive! What's next on the list of ways we can waste time and money?
Just more TDS!
Give them time. They'll fabricate something (again).
"activist judges".
Sounds much more like judges who know the law, can cite the law, and apply the law.
They didn't acquit Trump of having violated the emoluments clause, they simply ruled that because the Democrats who brought the case were not a majority of the House of representatives (only 215 out of 435), they didn't have standing since they did not fully represent the will of congress.
So Trump is guilty as sin, but these congressmen will need to get the majority on their side. Right now they would need 3 more congressional Democrats to join the suit to proceed so they will likely refile since they do have the majority thus will easily overcome this procedural denial.
Prove Trump is guilty. The court didn't say he was.
You need to go back and read the article.
Adding three more Democratic Congressmen to the suit won't do squat.
Where do you GET this stuff?
I apologize, that should have said 32 more democrat congressmen. They have 232 democrats in congress, they just need 218 to be a majority and thus overcoming the bar set by the appeals court.
The appeals court merely ruled they "do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the president’s acceptance of foreign emoluments".
So they simply need to constitute a majority of congress and they can move past this procedural denial.
And I didn't claim anything more than that.
You, however, claimed Trump is guilty.
I'd like to see your proof.
"...majority of Congress, and that they might have had standing if they had filed suit as a majority..."
Stretch it some more, Doctor.
TRANSLATION: Democrats TRIED another way to remove him from office AND FAILED AGAIN.
Should we wait for your proof or just start blowing you off now?
[deleted]
They do! ❄️❄️❄️❄️
Trump is replacing those as they leave the bench for retirement.