These cases contend that Trump's ownership of his Washington hotel violates the constitution's emoluments clause. The court yesterday dismissed the case on the grounds that the two states suing Trump did not have standing to challenge him in court.
Standing means a party to a lawsuit has a sufficient connection to the dispute.
The plaintiffs in the dismissed case can appeal to the Supreme Court or they could first ask the full bench of the appellate court to reconsider the matter. Based on statements made to the press, this sounds likely.
Nonetheless, yesterday's ruling was a disappointment. Previously, another federal court had dismissed an emolument's case brought by private citizens, saying that they too lacked standing.
There is a third emoluments lawsuit still working its way through federal court. This one was brought by members of Congress and is unaffected by yesterday's dismissal.
If that case should be thrown out on standing grounds, that will mean no one can bring an emoluments challenge against a sitting President. That then poses the question of how the emoluments clause can be enforced?
Impeachment, of course, would be one way. But if a President had no other impeachable issues, that would mean removing him or her over emoluments alone, and that seems rather drastic.
For this reason, it will be critically important to watch what happens with the emoluments suit that's still active. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Speak up!