FOLLOW US

A federal lawsuit that named President Donald Trump as a defendant was dismissed by Judge George B. Daniels. The plaintiffs were led by Citizens for Responsibility of Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. The federal lawsuit, filed three days after Trump’s inauguration, alleged that President Trump violated the U.S. Constitution by renting out hotel and meeting rooms to other governments. The plaintiffs argued that this amounted to President Trump accepting gifts from foreign governments (which, if true, would violate a constitutional provision that forbids the acceptance of foreign emoluments. An emolument is a salary or money that is paid from employment or an office).

The plaintiffs also alleged that President Trump and his businesses harmed companies and workers who are considered competitors because of their work in the hospitality industry. They allege that President Trump took advantage of his position in order to receive the emoluments.

Judge Daniels: Emolument Clause Not Intended to Protect Competing Businesses

Judge George B. Daniels presided over and dismissed the lawsuit. He found that the emolument clause was designed to protect against presidential corruption from foreign influences or foreign financial incentive, it was not designed to protect private competing businesses from businesses owned by someone elected as the President of the United States.

Judge Daniels said, “It is only natural that interest in [President Trump’s] properties has generally increased since he became president…” He also continued by saying that some may visit the properties because Trump is the president, and some may visit simply because they like the price or the quality of service.

Judge Daniels dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs’ inability to show that they had suffered some kind of loss because of President Trump’s actions. He noted that before President Trump was elected he was already in competition against the other businesses.

Plaintiffs Plan an Appeal

Citizens for Responsibility of Ethics in Washington plan to appeal the dismissal. Their issued statement expressed that they felt the ruling was a setback and that they would continue to press forward on what they feel is a violation of the Constitution.