The following article by Sharon LaFraniere was posted on the New York Times website January 25, 2018:
GREENBELT, Md. — A closely watched lawsuit claiming that President Trump is violating the Constitution by failing to divorce himself from his businesses appeared to inch forward on Thursday during a lengthy hearing before a federal judge in Maryland.
Judge Peter J. Messitte voiced skepticism about the Justice Department’s arguments that he should dismiss the lawsuit, filed last year by the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, on the grounds that Mr. Trump’s continued ownership of his businesses was a political issue, not a legal one.
Although the president’s lawyers persuaded Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court in Manhattan to throw out a similar lawsuit last month, Judge Messitte made clear that he was not bound by that ruling.
“Don’t cite Judge Daniels to me,” he admonished the Justice Department lawyer at one point.
Judge Messitte also suggested that the Justice Department was demanding too much proof too early of claims by the District of Columbia and Maryland governments that they had sustained monetary losses because Mr. Trump had failed to give up his ownership of hotels and other businesses. “You are asking for very specific losses,” he said.
The case is one of several filed last year by the president’s critics accusing Mr. Trump of violating the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which prevent a president from accepting government-bestowed benefits either at home or abroad. No court has interpreted what the clauses mean, and no previous president has ever been sued for violating them.
In his decision last month, Judge Daniels said it was up to Congress, not the courts, to decide whether Mr. Trump had illegally accepted any valuable benefits, such as trademark approvals, from foreign governments. And if Mr. Trump’s businesses had profited because consumers are more interested in patronizing Trump-owned hotels or golf courses in the United States since his election, Judge Daniels said, the president was not to blame.
But Judge Messitte seemed more sympathetic to claims by attorneys general for the District of Columbia and Maryland that the president had created an unfair playing field for convention centers and other facilities that compete against Trump-owned properties. “The argument is that as president he is unduly attracting business,” the judge said. “There is some evidence of that.”
Asked how the hearing went, Brian E. Frosh, Maryland’s attorney general, said, “Great.”
He said the Justice Department was trying to say that even though the emoluments clauses were meant to protect Americans from a president who uses the position to enrich himself, no one could sue the president for violating it. “I don’t think that’s a winning position,” Mr. Frosh said.
The complaint, filed at the federal court in Greenbelt, says in part that the Trump International Hotel in Washington diverts customers from businesses that the District of Columbia or Maryland license, tax or own, depriving them of revenue. Lawyers for the plaintiffs urged Judge Messitte to allow the case to proceed to discovery and allow them to obtain financial records of Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel.
Brett Shumate, the Justice Department lawyer, protested that the attorneys general were trying to appoint themselves as “roving constitutional watchdogs.” He argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing, or legitimate legal grounds, to sue.
“This is ultimately a political dispute and should be left to the political process,” he said.
But Judge Messitte seemed to already be considering what remedies might be in order should he allow the case to proceed, although both sides anticipate that any decision he made would be appealed.
“Everyone has always recognized that this case would have multiple layers of review,” said Norman L. Eisen, who heads Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose lawyers are outside counsel in the lawsuit.
View the post here.