See also: Amy BrittainAshley Parker and Anu Narayanswamy.  "Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump made at least $82 million in outside income last year while serving in the White House, filings show."  The Washington Post, June 11, 2018.


Office of the Attorney General of District Columbia


March 28, 2018

AGs Racine and Frosh Welcome Federal Court Ruling Allowing Lawsuit Against President Trump to Move Forward

Maryland, D.C. Have Standing to Pursue Violations of Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses

WASHINGTON – Today, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland have standing to challenge President Trump’s violation of the Emoluments Clauses. The Emoluments Clauses are the Constitution’s anti-corruption provisions. Their purpose is to ensure that the President makes decisions in the best interest of the country and its citizens, not his own personal financial interests.

“Today’s decision is a win for the rule of law, and soundly rejects the Trump Administration’s argument that nobody can challenge the President’s illegal conduct,” said Attorney General Frosh. 

“This important decision proves once again that no one – not even the President – is above the law,” said Attorney General Racine. “We will continue to seek an injunction to stop President Trump from flouting the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions.”

The Court found that the District and Maryland had standing – essentially, the right to assert a claim – to sue President Trump with regard to the Trump International Hotel in Washington and any other Trump Organization business activity within the District of Columbia. “[T]he Emoluments Clauses clearly were and are meant to protect all Americans. The President concedes as much,” U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte wrote in his decision. “That being so, there is no reason why Plaintiffs, a subset of Americans who have demonstrated present injury or the immediate likelihood of injury by reason of the President’s purported violations of the Emoluments Clauses, should be prevented from challenging what might be the President’s serious disregard of the Constitution. Under the President’s interpretation, it would seem that no one—save Congress which, as discussed momentarily, may never undertake to act—would ever be able to enforce these constitutional provisions.”

The Court will now schedule further arguments to determine whether--based on the facts as alleged in our complaint--the President's receipt of payments from foreign and domestic governments violates the Emoluments Clauses.

The Court’s order and its supporting opinion can be found here.

January 25, 2018

Statement of Attorneys General Karl A. Racine and Brian E. Frosh on Today’s Federal Court Arguments on Emoluments Lawsuit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh released the below statement on today’s oral arguments in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in District of Columbia and State of Maryland v. Trump. The arguments, on a motion by the defendant to dismiss the case, were the first hearing in a lawsuit brought by the District and Maryland against President Trump for violating the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution.

The statement by Attorneys General Racine and Frosh is below:

“We are pleased with today’s arguments. We came into today’s hearing confident in our case; we leave even more confident. Our lawyers did a tremendous job of arguing that the District and Maryland have standing to sue President Trump for violating the Emoluments Clauses, our nation's original anti-corruption laws, when he takes payments from foreign and domestic governments and uses his office for personal gain. We look forward to the judge’s ruling, and it’s our hope to proceed with discovery and to litigate the merits of this case. Americans shouldn’t have to question whether their president is making decisions in their best interest rather than his own. Americans deserve a president who serves the people, not his bottom line.”

November 29, 2017

Court Order in Emoluments Case Allows DC and Maryland to Serve Subpoenas for Document Preservation on Trump Businesses

WASHINGTON, D. C. – A federal judge has granted the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland permission to serve document-preservation subpoenas on businesses owned by President Donald Trump as part of the District and Maryland’s lawsuit alleging that President Trump is violating key anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution.
The ruling means that Maryland and the District can now serve subpoenas requiring Trump business entities to preserve documents potentially related to the lawsuit, even though the businesses are not parties to the case.

While these subpoenas will require Trump businesses to preserve their records, no document production will take place until the court enters an order. Oral arguments addressing President Trump’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit are scheduled for January 25, 2018.

Background
The joint District/Maryland lawsuit alleges that President Trump’s wide-ranging business entanglements with foreign and domestic government actors violate the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

The Emoluments Clauses are anti-corruption provisions included in the Constitution. They shield government officials from outside influence and ensure that they are motivated by the nation’s interests, rather than their own bottom lines. The Foreign Emoluments Clause bars officials from accepting money or items of value from foreign governments unless Congress grants an exception. The Domestic Emoluments Clause bars officials from accepting money or things of value—outside of their direct compensation—from the states or the federal government. In this way, the clauses prevent government entities from currying favor or exerting undue influence over officials.

According to the complaint, “[u]ncertainty about whether the President is acting in the best interests of the American people, or rather for his own ends or personal enrichment, inflicts lasting harm on our democracy. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility, and acted to prevent that harm.”

The suit seeks an injunction to put a stop to the President’s constitutional violations. More information on the suit can be found here: https://oag.dc.gov/page/emoluments-lawsuit
September 29, 2017

Attorney General Racine Responds to Department of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss Emoluments Clause Lawsuit

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorney General Karl A. Racine issued the following statement in response to today’s filing by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting dismissal of the District of Columbia and Maryland’s lawsuit against President Trump. The DOJ motion is the President’s first official legal response to the suit, which Attorney General Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh filed in June, accusing the President of violating the Constitution’s two Emoluments Clauses.

“Nothing in the Justice Department’s motion changes our view that President Trump has violated the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions,” said Attorney General Racine. “Since taking office, President Trump has continued to own, control, and profit from business interests around the world. By accepting benefits from foreign and domestic government actors, he is opening himself up to the type of divided loyalties and undue influence that the Constitution seeks to prevent. President Trump must take the same kind of clear, transparent steps that all other Presidents in recent history have taken and separate his personal business interests from the official business of the United States.”

Background
The joint District/Maryland lawsuit alleges that President Trump’s wide-ranging business entanglements with foreign and domestic government actors violate the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

The Emoluments Clauses are anti-corruption provisions included in the Constitution. They shield government officials from outside influence and ensure that they are motivated by the nation’s interests, rather than their own bottom lines. The Foreign Emoluments Clause bars officials from accepting money or items of value from foreign governments unless Congress grants an exception. The Domestic Emoluments Clause bars officials from accepting money or things of value—outside of their direct compensation—from the states or the federal government. In this way, the clauses prevent government entities from currying favor or exerting undue influence over officials.

According to the complaint, “[u]ncertainty about whether the President is acting in the best interests of the American people, or rather for his own ends or personal enrichment, inflicts lasting harm on our democracy. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility, and acted to prevent that harm.”

The suit seeks an injunction to put a stop to the President’s constitutional violations. More information can be found here: https://oag.dc.gov/page/emoluments-lawsuit


June 12, 2017

D.C. & Maryland AGs Sue Trump for Constitutional Violations

Suit Seeks to End Alleged Violations of Emoluments Clauses

Washington, DC (June 12, 2017) – District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh announced today that they have filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump, alleging that the President’s wide-ranging business entanglements violate the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. The suit seeks an injunction to put a stop to the president’s constitutional violations.

The Emoluments Clauses were included in the Constitution as anti-corruption provisions, meant to shield the president from outside influence and ensure that he works in the nation’s interest rather than focusing on his own bottom line. Specifically, the Foreign Emoluments Clause bars foreign powers from influencing or inducing the President with money or other items of value. The Domestic Emoluments Clause prevents individual states from competing against each other by giving the President money or other things of value.

“President Trump has violated important anti-corruption provisions of the U.S. Constitution. We are a nation of laws and no one—including the President of the United States—is above the law,” said Attorney General Racine. “As state attorneys general representing the people, we have a duty to serve as a check and balance against the president, whose business activities have opened the door to the type of corruption the Framers of our Constitution aimed to prevent.”

“Elected leaders must serve the people, and not their personal financial interests. That is the indispensable foundation of a democracy,” said Attorney General Frosh. “We cannot treat a president’s ongoing violations of the Constitution and disregard for the rights of the American people as the new and acceptable status quo. The president, above all other elected officials, must have only the interests of Americans at the heart of every decision.”

“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, calling into question the rule of law and the integrity of our political system,” the complaint states. For example, the President continues to own luxury hotel and resort properties -- including a new one just down the street from the White House -- catering to foreign and state government business. He continues to seek --- and in fact recently obtained from China -- valuable trademarks from foreign countries for his business ventures. Foreign and U.S. government entities rent space in Trump-owned buildings.

According to the complaint, “[U]ncertainty about whether the President is acting in the best interests of the American people, or rather for his own ends or personal enrichment, inflicts lasting harm on our democracy. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that possibility, and acted to prevent that harm.”

Attorneys General Racine and Frosh expressed their thanks to their staffs and to several partners who provided assistance in assembling the lawsuit. In particular, they thanked Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for their assistance.

The complaint is attached. For more information about the lawsuit, including a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), please visit www.oag.dc.gov or www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov.