DC and Maryland sue President Trump on emoluments
On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the emoluments cases because Donald Trump left office, rendering them moot. This important litigation made the American people aware of the pervasive corruption that resulted from a president maintaining a global business and accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments. Only Trump losing the presidency and leaving office ended these corrupt constitutional violations and the need for these groundbreaking lawsuits.
Read our full statement hereOn June 12, 2017, the District of Columbia (the District), and the State of Maryland filed a historic lawsuit against Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States for his unprecedented violations of the constitution. CREW is serving as co-counsel for Plaintiff’s DC and Maryland.
The suit alleges that President Trump has violated two provisions of the constitution: the Domestic Emoluments Clause, which bans the President from accepting gifts from state governments, and Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign government officials. These clauses were created to ensure the President faithfully serves the people without the compromising effects of financial inducements provided by foreign nations, their leaders, individual states, Congress, or other parts of the federal government.
President Trump, acting through companies that he owns, has violated both of these anti-corruption provisions by receiving millions of dollars in payments, benefits and other valuable consideration from foreign governments and persons acting on their behalf as well as federal agencies and state governments. President Trump’s continued ownership interest in a global business empire, which renders him deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors, violates the Constitution and calls into question the integrity of the country’s political system.
By asserting that he will maintain the interests at issue, President Trump is poised to engage in similar constitutional violations for the duration of his presidency. Therefore the District and Maryland have compelling and immediate interests in ensuring the the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses are enforced, as the President’s disregard for these constitutional constraints has resulted in significant and ongoing harm to them and their residents, including direct injury to their interests in properties located in the District, in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and in Montgomery County, Maryland.
In July of 2018, Judge Peter Messitte denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss the case. It was ruled that the Emoluments Clauses, put in place by the framers of the Constitution to protect against corruption, are broad and can be enforced in court. The decision gave Plaintiffs D.C. and Maryland the legal standing to sue. The Defendant later filed a motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s decision, which was denied, causing him to file a petition for writ of mandamus to the Fourth Circuit Court Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit granted the motion and stayed the district court proceedings. On May 14, 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived the DC and Maryland Emoluments case in an en banc opinion. Finally, on January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed the emoluments lawsuit because Donald Trump left office, rendering it moot.
Lawsuit documents
-
ComplaintJune 12, 2017
-
MemoMemorandum In Support of Government's Motion To Dismiss - Sept. 29, 2017
-
Amicus in Support Of The DefendantScholar Seth Barrett Tillman / Judicial Educational Project Amicus in Support Of The Defendant - October 6, 2017
-
Plaintiff's Motion For LeavePlaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - October 25, 2017
-
List of Entities To Receive Preservation SubpoenaList of Entities To Receive Preservation Subpoena 2017 - October 25, 2017
-
List of Documents To Be PreservedList of Documents To Be Preserved Pursuant to Subpoena Definitions - October 25, 2017
-
Defendant's Response to Motion For LeaveDefendant's Response to Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpoenas - October 27, 2017
-
Reply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For LeaveReply In Support of Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To Serve Document Preservation Subpeonas - November 2, 2017
-
Memo In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition MotionMemorandum In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion To Dismiss - November 7, 2017
-
Declaration of Rachel J RoginskyNovember 7, 2017
-
Expert Declaration of Christopher C. Muller, PH.D.November 7, 2017
-
Former Government Ethics Officers Amici CuriaeFormer Government Ethics Officers Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs - November 14, 2017
-
Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of P.Sarah P. Chayes Amica Curiae In Support of The Plaintiffs - November 14, 2017
-
Admin. Law, Con. Law, Federal Court Scholars Doc.Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - Nov. 14, 2017
-
Brief of Admin Law, Con Law, Fed Court ScholarsBrief of Admin Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal Court Scholars Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiffs - November 14, 2017
-
Former National Security Officials Amici CuriaeFormer National Security Officials Amici Curiae In Support of Plaintiff - November 14, 2017
-
Legal Historian's Brief of Amici CuriaeLegal Historian's Brief of Amici Curiae on Behalf of Plaintiffs - November 14, 2017
-
Government's Reply in Support of MotionGovernment's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - December 1, 2017
-
Oral Argument OrderDecember 17, 2017
-
Amended ComplaintMarch 12, 2018
-
Opinion on Defendant's Motion to DismissMarch 28, 2018
-
Order on Defendant's Motion to DismissMarch 28, 2o18
-
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to DismissMay 18, 2018
-
Declaration of Brandon BrockmyerDeclaration of Brandon Brockmyer In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - May 18, 2018
-
Exhibits- Dec. of Brandon BrockmyerMay 18, 2018
-
Defendant's Reply - Support of Motion to DismissMay 25, 2018
-
Court OpinionJuly 25, 2018
-
Defendant's Motion for Interlocutory AppealDefendant's Motion for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay - August 17, 2018
-
OrderAugust 20, 2018
-
Defendant's AnswerSeptember 5, 2018
-
P. Opposition to Motion for Interl. AppealPlaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay - September 17, 2018
-
Defendant's ReplySeptember 26, 2018
-
Order denying Interlocutory Appeal and StayNovember 2, 2018
-
Memorandum OpinionNovember 2, 2018
December 2018 - Trump files petition for writ of mandamus. This becomes the point where the case splits into his individual and official capacity.
Individual capacity
Official capacity
-
MotionMotion to Stay Pending Appeal on Behalf of Defendant in His Individual Capacity - Dec. 14, 2018
-
Petition for Writ of MandamusDecember 17, 2018
-
Stay OrderDecember 21, 2018
-
4th Circuit OpinionMay 14, 2020
-
Motion to Stay ProceedingsJune 12, 2020
-
Opposition to Motion to StayJune 29, 2020
-
Reply to Stay in Support of StayJuly 3, 2020
-
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Donald TrumpNotice of Voluntary Dismissal of Donald Trump in His Individual Capacity - July 17, 2020
-
Court Order Confirming Rule 41 DismissalJuly 30, 2020
-
Notice of AppealJuly 30, 2020