The Emoluments Clause case dismissal is not the end of the world

[StarfishSaver]

Although at first blush, the Supreme Court's dismissal of CREW's Emoluments Clause case against Trump seems outrageous, on closer review, it doesn't seem as bad as it first appeared. I would have preferred the Court continued with the case but I think there's a valid reason for the dismissal and the dismissal does not mean Trump cannot be held accountable for Emoluments Clause violations in the future. This was a dismissal of one particular case, not a finding that the Emoluments Clauses don't apply to Trump or that he can't be held liable for violating it.

I think the dismissal hinged on the fact that this case sought injunctive relief, e.g., an order enjoining Trump from continuing to violate the Emoluments Clauses, and "requiring [him] to release financial records sufficient to confirm that [he] is not engaging in any further transactions that would violate the Emoluments Clauses." That language in the complaint is probably what made the case moot - the relief the plaintiffs were seeking was rendered untenable as soon as Trump left office and is no longer subject to violating the Emoluments Clauses. As of January 20, he could no longer violate the Emoluments Clauses, so requests that the Court order him to stop violating it and prove that he stopped violating it are no longer viable.

This doesn't mean that he can't be - or hasn't already been - sued for violating the Emoluments Clauses. It just means that the Court determined that this specific case asking for remedies that can only be imposed on a sitting president was rendered moot by virtue of his leaving office and the goal of the lawsuit evaporated.

I'm not crazy about this decision, but I can live with it. There's plenty of other ways to hold him accountable for violating the Emoluments Clauses and the array of wrongdoing he engaged in before and after he became president.

[Walleye]

1. I'm hoping AG James has some NY charges to bring soon

[StarfishSaver]

5. I'm pretty sure he's going to spend the rest of his life tied up in court, and maybe in jail

[Walleye]

9. There's got to be some justice for this man. Rather man-baby

[StarfishSaver]

13. I think there will be

[servermsh]

2. What would be your preferred way, going forward, to hold Trump accountable for this?

Can the DOJ pursue action?

[Mike 03]

8. Maybe an approach that views the transgressions as having occurred in the past and

not an ongoing violation by a sitting president (just guessing)

I think the dismissal hinged on the fact that this case sought injunctive relief, e.g., an order enjoining Trump from continuing to violate the Emoluments Clauses, and "requiring [him] to release financial records sufficient to confirm that [he] is not engaging in any further transactions that would violate the Emoluments Clauses."

[StarfishSaver]

10. I don't know

The Constitution is silent about the remedies for a violation. It just says "thou shalt not" but doesn't say what happens if "thou did."

I think it probably can only be pursued a part of another type of action, not as a standalone. For example, individuals can sue him for damages resulting from his abuse of his powers - competitors, for example (who were the plaintiffs in the CREW case that was dismissed) - or he could be criminally charged with bribery or abuse of office and the plaintiffs or prosecutors can allege his violation of the Emoluments Clauses as part of the claims or charges.

Congress could also perhaps pass legislation making an Emoluments Clause violation a crime and lay out specific elements that would need to be proven for criminal liability to attach. But Trump couldn't be prosecuted under such a law because the Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws that retroactively criminalize behavior that wasn't illegal when the law was passed.

But if he's no longer in office and thus, not subject to injunctive relief, I don't see how anyone can go after him in a pure Emoluments Clause case. That's not so much the fault of prosecutors or the courts but of the Constitution's drafters for not being clearer about how to handle a federal officer who violates the Emoluments Clauses.

[Mike 03]

3. Excellent explanation that even a non-lawyer can understand.

Thank you, much appreciated!

[Hoyt]

4. Thanks for some sanity and research.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. Thanks for the explanation!

Makes me feel a little better.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. The voice of reason and clear analysis strikes again! Thank you!

[onenote]

11. There is no legislation implementing the emoluments clause

Which means the options for a plaintiff seeking to enforce the clause, apart from seeking prospective, injunctive relief, are limited.

[StarfishSaver]

12. They could get relief in common law, but would probably have to hitch it to another claim

[still_one]

14. Thanks Starfish for the explanation

[uponit7771]

15. K&R, The USSC was part of the timing to hear this case so if a case is brought in the future ...

... and the USSC hears it right away, for what ever reason, then that at minimum looks partisan or favored.

This whole thing on its face is poor even if the reason for not hearing it is sound.

[Happy Hoosier]

16. That's true, but....

The fact that Trump was able to string it out long enough that it was dismissed on the grounds of being moot is bad enough. It has the same effect as saying it's perfectly fine. Trump keeps the cash and there are no consequences.

[Liberal In Texas]

17. Thanks for the info, interesting. n/t