The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two lawsuits alleging that Donald Trump’s business as president violated the constitution’s ban on receiving financial benefits from foreign states or officials.
The cases raised a new question about the president’s ability to receive income from companies sponsored by government officials. But as soon as Trump stepped down, it was assumed that the cases would be deemed debatable because the constitutional provision would no longer apply to him – leaving the legal questions they raised unanswered.
The question arose shortly after Trump took office. Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia contested their receipt of profits from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, just blocks from the White House. And a nonprofit group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, raised similar concerns about the Trump International Hotel in New York.
Although Trump’s lawyers fought aggressively against the lawsuits, the lower courts refused to dismiss the cases, so the president took his appeals to the Supreme Court. Both processes involved constitution fee clauses, which prohibit the president from receiving “any gift, fee, title or title of any kind from any king, prince or foreign state” or any state of the USA
Maryland and Washington argued that the president has benefited financially unduly whenever foreign or state governments sponsored the Trump Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. Their lawsuits said government officials wanted to get favors from him, so they sponsored his hotel to the detriment of the DC convention center and the development of Maryland’s National Harbor, both generating local taxes and helping businesses in the area.
A federal appeals court sided with groups in New York who claimed similar fees.
“The president’s establishments offer government patrons something that claimants cannot: the opportunity, by enriching the president, to obtain favorable government treatment from the president and the executive branch,” the document said.
After the presidential election, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to close the cases and eliminate the decisions of first instance courts that found a violation of the emoluments clauses. Allowing them to stand up would leave “an erroneous decision in the books that this Court has not had a significant opportunity to review,” said government lawyers.
In a brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the cases and ordered the lower courts to overturn their decisions, erasing previous decisions from the books.
