VICTORY: President Trump just WON case against him over emoluments clause!

President Trump just won a major victory in court today, as federal appeals court judges threw out a case against him over the emoluments clause of the Constitution:

WAPO – A federal appeals court Wednesday sided with President Trump, dismissing a lawsuit claiming the president is illegally profiting from foreign and state government visitors at his luxury hotel in downtown Washington.

The unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is a victory for the president in a novel case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia involving anti-corruption provisions in the emoluments clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel said the attorneys general lacked legal standing to bring the lawsuit alleging the president is violating the Constitution when his business accepts payments from state and foreign governments. The decision — from Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Dennis W. Shedd and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. — also stops dozens of subpoenas to federal government agencies and Trump’s private business entities for financial records related to the D.C. hotel.

“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Niemeyer wrote in the 36-page opinion.



WAPO says the Democrat Attorney Generals have said they would “consider appealing for a rehearing by a full panel of the 4th Circuit”, so the case may not technically be over. We’ll have to wait and see if they get their rehearing or not.

But for now Trump has achieved a decisive victory and Jay Sekulow couldn’t be happier:

“The decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place,” he said after the ruling. “This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice.”

In case you are wondering, both Niemeyer and Shedd are George W. Bush appointees and Quattlebaum Jr. is a Trump appointee.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

93 thoughts on “VICTORY: President Trump just WON case against him over emoluments clause!

  1. If I was in one of these states and I had a lot of money and I had a lot of time, I would sue these AGs for wasting public resources on these frivolous lawsuits.

  2. I know where there are a bunch of exploding heads!!! Their pipe dreams keep getting squashed, yet they still don’t wake up from their cesspool of hatred and grasp at straws while their hate grows!

  3. When the President was a Builder of Buildings and in need of favors he would only need to leave Cash or Comp. reservations at his luxury Hotels for both Parties at the Political garbage Troughs. Now the Democratic Judges and Politicians are acting like they were never at the Troughs getting their freebies and Cash

  4. Can y’all imagine what President Trump could/would get done if the media, press, left, right, and the courts would stop harassing him at every turn? MAGA – WINNING!

  5. Presidential harassment

    I swear, this is the most pathetic term to emerge in the English language in a century.

    1. “The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Niemeyer wrote in the 36-page opinion.

      Apparently the judge disagrees with you.

        1. @atomicsentinel Sure, if you ignore 90% of what’s actually happening.

          It’s a moral equivalence, but in the opposite direction.

    2. We never needed a term for what was just politics before. Unless you’re under the age of 35, you’d know that the level of harassment via lawsuits, “investigations” and subpoenas has never–in history–been even close to what is going on now.

      Not by a long shot.

      It’s so bad now that your comment looks far more pathetic, by contrast. Here in the real world, you eventually reach a point where this kind of crap not only *must* be slapped back, but it becomes a duty to do so, just to preserve what is left of ordered liberty.

          1. No. But it wasn’t considered “Presidential Harassment” when we hounded Zero for his birth certificate, or demanded that Slick Willy answer some questions about a blue dress.

            And even if it was, we were right to harass them, weren’t we?

            1. Who’s this “we” to which you refer? Who here was hounding O for his birth certificate? Was O brought to court over it as Trump was with this Emoluments nonsense?

              Riiiight! That’s why the Republicans went after Clinton. It was all about a blue dress. You know, Clinton actually committed crimes, right?

              1. Who’s this “we” to which you refer?

                Trump supporters. They had no problem whatsoever “harassing” Democrat presidents instead of just letting them lead as they saw fit, right?

            2. Absolutely! But how many investigations and law suits were brought against these 2 losers from day one? And, more importantly, both had media adoration and basically a free ride from the Msm. Especially mom jeans! Not to mention the activist judges!! Totally outta control and not even close comparatively.

  6. Quattlebaum? Now there’s a name destined for law partner if I ever heard one.

    Quattlebaum’s Meats? Nah.
    Quattlebaum Construction? Nah.
    Quattlebaum Finance? Maybe.
    Quattlebaum’s Sub Shop? Uhh…
    Quattlebaum’s Used Cars? Yikes!
    Quattlebaum’s Logistics? Sure.
    Quattlebaum’s Pest Control? LOL.

    1. How far? Discovery hadn’t even begun. Short of the district court granting the dismissal motion (which decision would have been appealed anyway) this is literally the earliest point at which this case could possibly have been dismissed.

      1. You’re not talking with your co-workers here. Many people don’t know the steps of a lawsuit.

        1. I think he kinda gets off on it. It’s really the only time it comments here is to let posters know they are wrong and he knows better.

            1. You said it. I love my job, but I feel like I’d be fundamentally happier doing most anything else.

  7. I know where there are a bunch of exploding heads!!! Their pipe dreams keep getting squashed, yet they still don’t wake up from their cesspool of hatred and grasp at straws while their hate grows!

  8. Presidential harassment

    I swear, this is the most pathetic term to emerge in the English language in a century.

          1. No. But it wasn’t considered “Presidential Harassment” when we hounded Zero for his birth certificate, or demanded that Slick Willy answer some questions about a blue dress.

            And even if it was, we were right to harass them, weren’t we?

            1. Who’s this “we” to which you refer? Who here was hounding O for his birth certificate? Was O brought to court over it as Trump was with this Emoluments nonsense?

              Riiiight! That’s why the Republicans went after Clinton. It was all about a blue dress. You know, Clinton actually committed crimes, right?

              1. Who’s this “we” to which you refer?

                Trump supporters. They had no problem whatsoever “harassing” Democrat presidents instead of just letting them lead as they saw fit, right?

            2. Absolutely! But how many investigations and law suits were brought against these 2 losers from day one? And, more importantly, both had media adoration and basically a free ride from the Msm. Especially mom jeans! Not to mention the activist judges!! Totally outta control and not even close comparatively.

    1. “The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Niemeyer wrote in the 36-page opinion.

      Apparently the judge disagrees with you.

        1. @atomicsentinel Sure, if you ignore 90% of what’s actually happening.

          It’s a moral equivalence, but in the opposite direction.

    2. We never needed a term for what was just politics before. Unless you’re under the age of 35, you’d know that the level of harassment via lawsuits, “investigations” and subpoenas has never–in history–been even close to what is going on now.

      Not by a long shot.

      It’s so bad now that your comment looks far more pathetic, by contrast. Here in the real world, you eventually reach a point where this kind of crap not only *must* be slapped back, but it becomes a duty to do so, just to preserve what is left of ordered liberty.

  9. Seems to me though, Trump should not be benefiting personally from his office by holding events at his properties unless he can show he is being paid what the next lowest bid was to hold similar events.
    This is just common sense. We bash the Clintons and Obamas for cashing in on much less. Trump actually had physical entities he can make money on – not just access or speeches.

    1. @ronbo Apparently the law doesn’t agree with you. Trump also donated his presidential salary to charity. I don’t remember a democrat president ever doing that.

      1. Don’t see what one thing has to do with the other but when you’re all in on Trump, a balanced discussion is impossible. Reminds me of when you try to talk to progressives.

        1. “but when you’re all in on Trump,”

          Nice assumption. Mind reading… how does that work?

  10. Quattlebaum? Now there’s a name destined for law partner if I ever heard one.

    Quattlebaum’s Meats? Nah.
    Quattlebaum Construction? Nah.
    Quattlebaum Finance? Maybe.
    Quattlebaum’s Sub Shop? Uhh…
    Quattlebaum’s Used Cars? Yikes!
    Quattlebaum’s Logistics? Sure.
    Quattlebaum’s Pest Control? LOL.

  11. If I was in one of these states and I had a lot of money and I had a lot of time, I would sue these AGs for wasting public resources on these frivolous lawsuits.

  12. When the President was a Builder of Buildings and in need of favors he would only need to leave Cash or Comp. reservations at his luxury Hotels for both Parties at the Political garbage Troughs. Now the Democratic Judges and Politicians are acting like they were never at the Troughs getting their freebies and Cash

  13. Can y’all imagine what President Trump could/would get done if the media, press, left, right, and the courts would stop harassing him at every turn? MAGA – WINNING!

    1. How far? Discovery hadn’t even begun. Short of the district court granting the dismissal motion (which decision would have been appealed anyway) this is literally the earliest point at which this case could possibly have been dismissed.

      1. You’re not talking with your co-workers here. Many people don’t know the steps of a lawsuit.

        1. I think he kinda gets off on it. It’s really the only time it comments here is to let posters know they are wrong and he knows better.

            1. You said it. I love my job, but I feel like I’d be fundamentally happier doing most anything else.

  14. Seems to me though, Trump should not be benefiting personally from his office by holding events at his properties unless he can show he is being paid what the next lowest bid was to hold similar events.
    This is just common sense. We bash the Clintons and Obamas for cashing in on much less. Trump actually had physical entities he can make money on – not just access or speeches.

    1. @ronbo Apparently the law doesn’t agree with you. Trump also donated his presidential salary to charity. I don’t remember a democrat president ever doing that.

      1. Don’t see what one thing has to do with the other but when you’re all in on Trump, a balanced discussion is impossible. Reminds me of when you try to talk to progressives.

        1. “but when you’re all in on Trump,”

          Nice assumption. Mind reading… how does that work?

Comments are closed.