Is President Donald Trump already violating the Constitution. That's the contention of a new lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group today. It's represented by some of the biggest names in constitutional law. The claim is that Trump's continuing stake in his business puts him in violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which bars government officials from accepting things of
value from foreign governments. The group, known as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, points the money paid to Trump's hotels and golf courses, payments on leases held at Trump Tower, and the deals that confer rights overseas Trump's show The Apprentice. The group is asking a federal judge in Manhattan to bar Trump from accepting payments from foreign governments and government owned entities. Moments ago, Trump told reporters
the lawsuit was quote totally without merit. He has taken the position that under the law, presidents cannot have a conflict of interest. Does the lawsuit lawsuits stand a chance? And what would the implications be if it does. Our guests to talk about the new lawsuits new lawsuit are Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, which has been rather critical of the new president and Jonathan Adler,
a law professor at Case Western University, Welcome to you both. Caroline. Let's start with you make make the case for this this lawsuit. What's the argument that says that Trump is violating the molument? I mean, first of all, UH, he's conflating several things when he says the president uh has no no conflict of interest. UM. You know, there are many statutes uh, and lots of custom about how presidents are supposed to behave to make the American people believe
that they have our nation's interests first, not their own pocketbook. UM. But this is the constitution, um. And we we're talking about is the Emoluments Clause UM, which was adopted by the Framers because of great concern about foreign governments being able to influence those to run our country and by definition, to influence the president. UM. It's it's very squarely on point.
It says that no person holding any office of profit or trust shall, without the consent of Congress, except any president, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. So you know, I think, um, you know, it's clear that the president is covered by the emoluments clause. UM, And I think, um, the advocates who brought this suit have a very very strong argument, UM that there is a potential, certainly for a violation by the payments that
are made to the company. Jonathan Trump's attorneys at Morgan, Lewis and Bucks has said, Jonathan, are you still there? I think we've lost him, just for just for a few moments. So Caroline Trump's attorneys have said that the monuments clause doesn't apply to arms length transactions in which the president's business is engaged, such as paying a hotel room bill to a corporate entity. What your answer to that? Well, you know, I honestly, how arms length is it to
have your children running your business? Um? And that's that's not a very long arm for sure. UM. But in any case, I think the issue is really about, um, what impact it has on the president and how he makes decisions. Uh. The the influence is what they are going to be cultivating. Uh. The knowledge of their spending will be easily conveyed to the President's clear that there could be an influence. So you know, I don't know what kind of arms length that is certainly not in
my mind. Well isn't though, If all a foreign government is doing, or you know, foreign official is doing is coming to, say the Trump International Hotel and paying you know, whatever rate anybody else would pay there, I think that's what they're talking about with an arms length transaction. Uh. Why should that be something that potentially puts the president in violation of the Constitution. Well, I'd say two things.
One is, um, we've heard a very um explicit um decisions by foreign governments to direct their spending to the Trump properties um and making it publicly known. Um. That's very different from you know, I'm going to go have lunch there once a month um. Uh. And so I think that's something that has to be looked into. The other pieces that what's very important about lawsuits is um that they allow us to have a better understanding of
the facts. And through the discovery process. One of the things that I know that the the those who are involved with this lawsuit hope to get ahold of ore the president's tax returns um. And in those tax returns, we'd have a much better sense of how much money he's really getting from these foreign governments. And I think that's an important piece of this. I mean, we we
just don't know. I mean, right now, you know there there's a possibility that there that that he's not getting any payments from from foreign governments, but there is definitely a possibility that he is. Jonathan Adler is back with us. Jonathan is standing, which is the plaintiffs showing that they would suffer direct injury a problem in this lawsuit. Well, I think standing is a huge problem in this lawsuit.
As a general matter, UH, saying that you are really concerned that the federal government or or an executive officer is violating the law is not enough to invoke the
jurisdiction of federal courts. UH. And in this case, UM, I don't believe that that the plaintiffs have been able to identify anything that causes them UH legally cognizable injury, let alone satisfies the other requirements of standing, that that injury be traceable to the alleged legal violation, and that or that a UH favorable judgment would address that injury. I think I think it's it's in the very aggressive argument upstanding that they're making, and I would not expect
it to google claw. Carolyn, What's what's your response to that I find this is one of one of these issues standing that UH. You know, during the Obama years, it was the the Republican opponents of Obama who are arguing for robust standing, and now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Uh. Well, you know, it is an aggressive argument. I'd have to agree, but I
think it has UM some merit. There. There's a nine two Supreme Court decision in which a group that UH was arguing for fair housing UM was able to get standing because it UH it showed that its use of testers to find out employment discrip whether there was a
housing discrimination UH was cognizable UM. And so the argument here is that is that crew, the Citizens for Responsive Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is the plaintiff UM, is diverting its resources to UMH the work that UH it has to do on government transparency UH and UM. So you know, it's certainly there's a parallel UM. I. I you know, I think there's it's it's one of the issues that is going to be most litigated in
this case, no doubt. UM. But I think if they've got a claim, a colorable claim, and it's we'll see how the courts take it. We're talking about the new lawsuits that accuses Donald Trump of violating the Constitution through his business dealings with foreign governments. Our guests are Caroline Frederickson of the American Constitution Society and Jonathan Adler, professor at Case Western. Uh. Jonathan, Uh, I think this might have been when you were temporarily off, but Caroline was
was making the case for this lawsuit. And basically the argument is the emoluments Clause is written very broadly, and these are situations where foreign governments might be able to curry favor with the new president by staying at his hotel or perhaps giving him a sweetheart deal on on some sort of thing. If the plaintiffs could get over the standing problem. Is there a subtive argument that the
president is in violation of the Constitution. There is an argument, and I do think there is serious academic debate over whether the president is properly covered by the clause, and and there is certainly academic debate about how we identify the difference between money obtained in a on length transaction and what is actually an emolument or an improper inducement. But the larger question is really whether or not this is the sort of thing that should be handled in
the federal courts. The emoluments cause itself gives Congress the authority to decide what the line is between the permissible and impermissible emolument. Uh. The impeachment clause specifically identifies bribery has a potential grounds for impeachment. So I think the larger question is whether or not this is the sort of thing that the political process to deal with or the sort of thing that should be left in the hands of, you know, a single federal judge in a
single court case. Caroline. This disorganization all so filed a separate complaint on Friday with the General Services Administration over provision in the Trump organization's lease of the old Post Office building for the Trump Hotel. That provision prohibits any elected official of the United States government from being part of the lease or deriving any benefit from it. Does that sound like a clearer claim? Well, it also sounds
like a clear claim. Um. I mean, I guess I think the Constitution and just to respond to Professor Adler, you know, specifically frame to ensure that when the political branches are pailing, that the judiciary can can have a role so that um, and this Congress is not necessarily one that is going to see fit uh. It's certainly
not now to explore a violation of the Monuments clause. UM. But I do think that the the issue is very clear in the lease UM that it forbids uh uh an official of the government to umu to the same to have that kind of relationship with the g s A UM. So it'll be interesting to see how that case proceeds as well. UM. But it certainly seems rather straightforward. Jonathan.
Let's let's play this out just a little bit. UM. If a court were to find that the president is in violation of the Monuments clause, Uh, what would happen there? So you have a court that orders him to what divest himself of these assets? Um? Do we think that that this president is actually gonna gonna agree to do that? Is this? You know? So we're concerned that this is
getting getting us into a real constitutionally messy area. Well, that that really highlights the problem and the idea that a federal court would be entrusted with overseeing the financial relationships of the president and deciding what is or is not an acceptable relationship when the Constitution expressively give Congress
that authority would create a separation of powers nightmare. And it's well established in the Supreme Court jurisprudence that in these sorts of intra branch UH controversies and conflicts, particularly those that are designed to prevent protect can things like corruption,
that it's not clear the courts have a role. So in cases like Nixon versus United States, Extreme Court said the courts have no ability to even ask whether UH Congress followed proper procedures when impeaching a judge, that it's not a question of what Congress got a close and off its courts have no jurisdiction to address the question, and that when we play out what would be involved if the crew were successful in the suit, we see why this is really not the sort of thing that's
best handles in courts. And I say that as someone who agrees that there are serious questions about the president's potential conflicts of interest and who would like to see a group more actions to to assure all of us that proper financial separation has been made, I just really don't believe that that litigation is the way we accomplish that, Caroline,
what's your response to that? Well, I mean, I think the constitution um makes it clear, Um, Congress can certainly consent to allow uh the president to get gifts from foreign states. Um. It does. The clause does not, however, say that Congress will adjudicate whether the emoluments Clause has been violated or not. So I think it stands apart
from impeachment, which has that particular process laid out. Um. And when we are in a situation where the government, um, you know is in essence a one party state, uh, you know, we are we left to say that any ethics violation, any constitutionally uh sufficient ethical violations that the president is going to engage in, we just have to look the other way because nobody's going to be able
to to do anything about it. I can't imagine that that's what our framers, um, we're thinking when they constructed the emoluments clause, that there would be no uh, no response possible. So I actually think this is uh, you know, it's something that uh uh it's it's the role of the judiciary specifically to enforce these types of provisions in
the Constitution. Jonathan, would uh the standing argument be a stronger if, as I guess, the a c l U is considering filing a suit on behalf of a competing hotel. For example, somebody who says I got less business because uh, people who might have stayed at my hotel instead go to stay at the Trump hotel to curry favor with the new president. Would that be an argument that would
get him over the standing hump. I still think that that argument might have some problems, but I do think it would be a significantly stronger argument for standing than we see in this case. Of courts have recognized, at least in certain circumstances, that competitors can have standing to challenge governmental actions which unfairly benefit of competing terms. Caroline. Is a problem here that there is very little law as far as litigation on the emoluments clause. Hey, how well,
that's certainly to put it mildly. Um. Um, I think, which is why the law professors love it. Um. In many ways, this is such a great area for discussion. Um. It's intriguing, it's interesting, um. But you know, really, what it reflects is that the practice of our presidents till now has been consistent that the expectation is so broadly shared that the president must make it clear to the American public that he holds our nation's interests ahead of
his own. It's the most portant, important part of his job, that it is the duty that he holds um. And I think we're seeing that shaken. We've never we've never had to litigate this before, because presidents have made clear that they are not interested in uh in in misleading the American public. Uh and that we have standards for ethical behavior that they have attempted to follow. I mean,
not always perfectly, perhaps, but um. I think we had some very strong norms about what was acceptable, and President Trump has violated every one of them. Jonathan, There this issue did come up in a slightly different, well maybe a very very different context at the beginning of the Obama administration when he was going to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and there was a Justice Department assessment that that determined he would not be in violation of
the Monuments clause by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Does that affect the analysis here at all in your mind? I don't know that particular one does. I mean, there are there are examples going back through history where presidents have sought legal opinions or whether or not they could accept certain sorts of things, and a handful of cases involving um questions about presidents uh own financial affairs, not in not cases like Wittige Eaten Court, but but instances
in which was this was examined. But but Karen is right that that we don't have a lot that's on point. Not even the various Office of Legal Council memos that address these questions, um are are rather thin on the
things that are directly relevant to this lawsuit. So we don't have nearly as much established precedent in this area as as we would like to have to bring some clarity, Caroline, as far as the litigation itself would go, you have to even no matter which way a federal judge ruled, you have to believe that that's going to be appealed and appealed as high as it can go. So we take might take years for this to be decided potentially, um.
You know, hopefully I think the courts can recognize that that an issue of this importance requires expedited, expedited process. But you know, legal work is never speedy. Um uh So I'm expecting it will take some time. But as that goes on, uh, you know, if they make it past the first hurdle and they get into discovery, they will potentially be further information coming out that will strengthen the case UM, and strengthen the case politically perhaps as
well as legally UM. And the tax returns, yes, indeed, other types of information that comes out about payments that may be being made UM. Because you know, I think you know what ultimately, what everybody would want is an administration a president who follows the rules as they've been known till now. And if he if he decided to actually divest from his company, if he actually set up a process of screenings that was appropriate, if he actually uh uh made it clear that his tax were for
tax tax returns would be available for people. I think you know all this, you know, people would would would be much more confident in the lawsuits would go away. But until that happens, I think nobody can be confident that, UM, we don't have a president who is in withdrawal of foreign governments taking payments for for services and uh and I think UM As a result, I think the courts are going to certainly try and and and move as
an expedited a fashion as they can. Um that not not necessarily speedy, though, as I said, because courts don't work that way. We're talking about the new lawsuit file today involving the Emolument's clause, accusing Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by his business dealings with foreign governments.