Emoluments Clause Lawsuits: Three Federal Cases Alleging Constitutional Violations Through Business Profits
Tier 2Dismissed as Moot2017-01-23 to 2021-01-25
Factual Summary
Three federal lawsuits filed between 2017 and 2018 alleged that Donald Trump violated the Constitution's Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses by continuing to profit from his hotel and business empire while serving as president. The central allegation across all three cases was that foreign governments and domestic state officials patronized Trump properties, particularly the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., generating payments that constituted constitutionally prohibited emoluments received without congressional consent.
In CREW v. Trump, filed January 23, 2017 in the Southern District of New York, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and competitor businesses alleged violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. A Second Circuit panel reversed, but the full court sitting en banc reinstated the dismissal.
In District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump, filed June 12, 2017, the attorneys general of D.C. and Maryland sued in their sovereign capacities. District Judge Peter Messitte allowed the case to proceed and permitted limited discovery. A three-judge Fourth Circuit panel dismissed for lack of standing, but the full court sitting en banc reversed 9-to-6, reinstating the case.
In Blumenthal v. Trump, filed in 2017, 215 members of Congress alleged that Trump deprived them of their constitutional role in approving foreign emoluments. The D.C. Circuit dismissed for lack of standing, holding that the individual members did not constitute a majority of either chamber.
On January 25, 2021, five days after Trump left office, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings in both CREW and D.C./Maryland and ordered the cases dismissed as moot. No court ever reached a final ruling on the constitutional merits. The underlying questions regarding what conduct the emoluments clauses prohibit remain unanswered.
Primary Sources
1. CREW v. Trump, Supreme Court Docket No. 20-330, Cert. Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-330/153532/20200909192349667_Trump%20v.%20CREW%20Cert%20Petition.pdf
2. Fourth Circuit En Banc Opinion, D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, No. 18-2486: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182486.P.pdf
3. Blumenthal v. Trump, D.C. Circuit Opinion No. 19-5237: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/19-5237/19-5237-2020-02-07.html
Corroborating Sources
1. Brennan Center for Justice: "Supreme Court Ducks an Opportunity on Trump Emoluments Cases"
2. CREW case page: https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/lawsuits/crew-v-donald-j-trump/
3. National Constitution Center: "An Update on the Emoluments Cases"
Counterarguments and Context
Trump's legal team argued that the term "emolument" historically referred only to compensation for services rendered in an official capacity, not ordinary commercial transactions such as hotel stays at market rates. Under that interpretation, foreign governments paying standard hotel bills did not constitute constitutionally prohibited emoluments. The administration consistently challenged plaintiff standing across all three cases and succeeded on standing grounds in most proceedings. No court ruled on the merits of whether Trump's business profits violated the clauses.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 2 because the cases were formally filed and litigated through multiple levels of the federal judiciary, generating significant constitutional analysis, but were ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds (standing and mootness) without an adjudicated determination on the merits. The Supreme Court's decision to vacate rather than affirm the lower court rulings left the constitutional questions unresolved.