Appeals court to review lawsuit over Trump hotel
RICHMOND, Va. — The outcome of a lawsuit alleging that Donald Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution by profiting off the presidency could depend largely on competing definitions of an antiquated word: emoluments.
At the center of the lawsuit is the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bans federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
The attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C., say government spending at Trump’s Washington hotel falls under a broad definition of emoluments: any profit, gain, or advantage.
Trump’s attorneys, however, argue that the definition does not include payments for hotel stays. They argue the emoluments clause only bars payments to the president if they’re made in connection with services he provides in his official capacity.
The debate over the narrow vs. broad definition will be on display when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in the case Tuesday.
Trump’s legal team is challenging a decision by a federal judge in Maryland to allow the lawsuit to go forward. Judge Peter Messitte ruled in July that the attorneys general had made convincing arguments that the constitutional meaning of emoluments encompasses any profit, gain, or advantage. It was the first time a federal judge had interpreted the clause.
Trump also argues that as president, he has absolute immunity from the lawsuit. But Maryland and the District say Trump’s alleged misconduct is unrelated to the functions of his office, so absolute immunity does not apply.
Before Trump was sued, the emoluments clause was a constitutional provision familiar mainly to constitutional scholars and law professors.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia...