Trump bid to dismiss lawsuit over gifts from foreign governments rejected by US judge
‘Today’s historic ruling is a substantial step forward to ensure President Trump stops violating our nation’s original anti-corruption laws,’ says DC attorney general
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A US federal judge has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of unconstitutionally accepting gifts.
The suit alleges Mr Trump has violated clauses of the US constitution, which bar elected officials from receiving gifts of any kind from foreign and domestic governments.
Karl Racine, District of Columbia attorney general, and Brian Frosh, Maryland attorney general, filed a lawsuit against Mr Trump in June last year, alleging the president’s business entanglements are in violation of the US constitution.
The lawsuit alleges the president’s connection to the Trump Organisation and the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, has violated the emoluments clause since foreign and domestic government officials have stayed at his luxury hotel in the US capital.
In Wednesday’s 52-page decision, district judge Peter Messitte rejected Mr Trump’s “cramped” view that emoluments were limited essentially to bribes.
Mr Messitte said the plaintiffs had “convincingly argued” that emoluments had a broader meaning, consistent with how even George Washington used the term in a 1776 proclamation.
“The clear weight of the evidence shows that an ‘emolument’ was commonly understood by the founding generation to encompass any ‘profit’, ‘gain’, or ‘advantage’,” Mr Messitte wrote.
The Department of Justice, which defended Mr Trump, is determining its next steps “to continue vigorously defending the president”, spokesman Andy Reuss said. “We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed.”
Mr Racine countered in a statement: “Today’s historic ruling is a substantial step forward to ensure President Trump stops violating our nation’s original anti-corruption laws.
“The constitution is clear: the president can’t accept money or other benefits from foreign or domestic governments.”
He added: “We sued because this corruption is taking place in our backyard, and because 325 million Americans shouldn’t have to wonder if the president is putting his personal financial interests ahead of the national interest.”
The lawsuit also claims the Trump International Hotel has put competing hotels in the area at a disadvantage.
Reuters contributed to this report
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments