Donald Trump

SCOTUS Dismisses Cases Alleging Trump Violated Constiution’s Emoluments Clause

Published by

The Supreme Court of the United States has dismissed cases alleging former President Donald Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause and profited off the presidency during his time in office.

The emoluments clauses is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that states “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Advertisement

The Supreme Court issued its ruling without comment or dissent and instructed the lower courts to toss out a previous opinion, one that allowed the emoluments lawsuit to proceed, because Trump is no longer in office and are now moot.

Lawsuits had accused Trump of violating the Constitution’s anti-corruption provisions because he had never formally divested himself from his financial empire during his tenure. Trump’s refusal to divest himself and place his assets in a blind trust created a slew of potential conflicts of interest, accusations that he’d broken the law, and further criticism that his business decisions had influenced policymaking.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“The Supreme Court’s procedural order not only wipes away two lower court rulings, but it also orders dismissal of the entire dispute — leaving for some other time resolution of the many questions Trump’s conduct raised about the Emoluments Clause,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who provides Supreme Court analysis for CNN. 

“Ordinarily, the Court pursues such a step only when the prevailing party moots a case while the appeal is pending — as opposed to here, where the disputes became moot because Trump’s term ended,” he added. “Today’s orders suggest that the court is increasingly willing to invoke this doctrine to avoid highly charged political disputes, even if the mootness wasn’t caused by the parties that won below.”
Advertisement
Published by

Recent Posts

Devin Nunes Leaves Congress To Take A Job With Trump Business That’s Under Investigation

Devin Nunes announced that he is leaving Congress to take a job with Trump's new…

12 hours ago

Trump’s New Social Media Platform Is Already Under Federal Investigation

Trump's new social media venture was flagged by experts as a scheme, and the SEC…

14 hours ago

Biden DOJ Sues Texas For Voting Map That Discriminates Against Blacks And Latinos

The Justice Department has sued Texas for a second time in a month over a…

15 hours ago

Biden Restores American Values With Diplomatic Boycott Of Beijing Winter Olympics

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced that the U.S. would be diplomatically boycotting the…

17 hours ago

Trump May Get Stacey Abrams Elected Governor By Having David Perdue Primary Brian Kemp

Trump is meddling in Georgia again, and this time he could very easily get Stacey…

18 hours ago

Civil Rights Groups Urge Schumer to Pass Social Spending and Climate Bill As Is

A coalition of civil rights groups, including the NAACP and National Urban League, has urged…

20 hours ago

This website uses cookies.