This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/emoluments-suit-trump.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court Temporarily Halts Emoluments Suit Against Trump Court Temporarily Halts Emoluments Suit Against Trump
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily halted a lawsuit that accuses President Trump of illegally benefiting from his family’s business, an interim victory for the Justice Department in its effort to block more than three dozen subpoenas for documents from the Trump Organization, the president’s trust and other entities. WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court temporarily halted on Thursday a lawsuit that accuses President Trump of illegally benefiting from his family’s business, an interim victory for the Justice Department in its effort to block more than three dozen subpoenas for documents from the Trump Organization, the president’s trust and other entities.
A lower court judge had allowed the lawsuit, brought by the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, to proceed to the evidence-gathering stage. Attorneys general for the two local jurisdictions have alleged that Mr. Trump has violated the Constitution’s anticorruption clauses by accepting payments, or emoluments, from foreign, federal and state officials who patronized the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House.A lower court judge had allowed the lawsuit, brought by the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, to proceed to the evidence-gathering stage. Attorneys general for the two local jurisdictions have alleged that Mr. Trump has violated the Constitution’s anticorruption clauses by accepting payments, or emoluments, from foreign, federal and state officials who patronized the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House.
They say the president’s hotel siphons off business from hotels and convention centers that generate revenue for their governments. In a series of rulings, the federal judge overseeing the case, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md., has ruled against the president.They say the president’s hotel siphons off business from hotels and convention centers that generate revenue for their governments. In a series of rulings, the federal judge overseeing the case, Peter J. Messitte of the United States District Court in Greenbelt, Md., has ruled against the president.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to intervene, arguing that Judge Messitte had wrongly treated the case, which could have substantial constitutional implications, like a “run-of-the-mill commercial dispute.” This month, the Justice Department asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to intervene, arguing that Judge Messitte had wrongly treated the case, which could have substantial constitutional implications, like a “run-of-the-mill commercial dispute.”
The department argued: “The complaint rests on a host of novel and fundamentally flawed constitutional premises, and litigating the claims would entail intrusive discovery into the president’s personal financial affairs and the official actions of his administration.”The department argued: “The complaint rests on a host of novel and fundamentally flawed constitutional premises, and litigating the claims would entail intrusive discovery into the president’s personal financial affairs and the official actions of his administration.”
In a two-paragraph order on Thursday, the appeals court granted the department’s motion for a stay and scheduled a hearing for March.In a two-paragraph order on Thursday, the appeals court granted the department’s motion for a stay and scheduled a hearing for March.
Among other issues, the judges said they wanted to hear from both sides about whether the local jurisdictions have “alleged legally cognizable injuries sufficient to support standing to obtain relief against the President.” Among other issues, the judges said they wanted to hear from both sides about whether the local jurisdictions have “alleged legally cognizable injuries sufficient to support standing to obtain relief against the president.”
The attorneys general, Brian E. Frosh of Maryland and Karl A. Racine of the District of Columbia, said that the appeals court did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit and that they look forward to arguing the case before the higher court.
“We firmly believe that the Federal District Court got it right when it allowed us to move forward with this action and discovery,” they said in a statement.