Appeals court agrees to hear case involving Trump DC hotel

Civil Rights

A federal appeals court agreed Thursday to take up a case accusing Donald Trump of profiting off the presidency in violation of the U.S. Constitution, giving the president's legal team its first major victory in the case.

The order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, hits the pause button on the ongoing federal court case in Maryland before deadlines to respond to subpoenas issued earlier this month seeking tax returns, receipts and other records from 13 Trump businesses and other entities.

It came just three days after Justice Department lawyers filed papers seeking a writ of mandamus appeal, criticizing U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte and arguing that that the "intrusive" discovery that has already begun would distract the president from his performance of his constitutional duties and could cause separation of powers concerns.

For Justice to succeed at the appeals level, they must meet a demanding standard that would partly rest on showing Messitte's decisions to be clearly wrong.

The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia alleges that because Trump has not divested himself of his business holdings, foreign and domestic government spending at Trump's Washington hotel amounts to gifts to the president in violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause.

Oral arguments before the three-judge appeals court are scheduled for March, delaying what had been a brisk discovery schedule set in the district court by several months. The order also notes that lawyers should be prepared to also address substantive issues such as whether the plaintiffs in the case can even sue and, if victorious, compel the president to stop violating the Constitution.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco told The Associated Press the "DOJ is pleased" by the order.

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine issued a joint statement calling the decision merely "a procedural one" and "not a ruling on the merits of our historic lawsuit against President Trump."

"We firmly believe that the federal district court got it right when it allowed us to move forward with this action and discovery. We look forward to defending our position before the court and continuing our efforts to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by using his office for profit," they said.

Related listings

  • The Latest: Court likely to apply excess-fine ban to states

    The Latest: Court likely to apply excess-fine ban to states

    Civil Rights 11/27/2018

    The Supreme Court seems very likely to rule that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The outcome could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth o...

  •  Mixed rulings for Republicans from Kentucky Supreme Court

    Mixed rulings for Republicans from Kentucky Supreme Court

    Civil Rights 11/15/2018

    In a pair of mixed rulings for Kentucky Republicans, the state Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law requiring a panel of doctors to review medical malpractice cases before they go to court while upholding the state's law banning mandatory unio...

  • Trump visit stirs debate; massacre defendant in court

    Trump visit stirs debate; massacre defendant in court

    Civil Rights 10/31/2018

    The man charged in the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre was brought into court in a wheelchair Monday, as some members of the Jewish community and others objected to President Donald Trump’s plans to visit, accusing him of contributing to a toxic ...