Judge refuses to dismiss Trump emoluments suit

WASHINGTON — A lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by refusing to divorce himself from his businesses cleared a key hurdle Wednesday when a federal judge in Maryland refused the Justice Department’s plea to dismiss it. The decision could allow the plaintiffs to scrutinize the Trump Organization’s financial records for payments from foreign entities and others possibly seeking to influence the White House. In a 47-page order, Judge Peter Messitte said he refused to bar the lawsuit filed last year by Washington, D.C., and the state of Maryland, rejecting claims that the two jurisdictions had not sufficiently alleged injuries. The suit alleges Trump has violated constitutional anti-corruption clauses intended to limit government-bestowed benefits to the president, or emoluments, other than salary. Although the suit could still be thrown out on other grounds, the judge’s ruling adds to the president’s growing legal troubles. Besides the ongoing criminal inquiry into Russia’s influence over the presidential election, an actress in pornographic films, a former Playboy model and a onetime contestant on The Apprentice have filed lawsuits over their alleged relationships with Trump before he became president. The emoluments case raises basic questions that have never been litigated. It is neither clear what constitutes an illegal benefit to the president nor whether any legal remedy exists if the president accepts one. During a January court hearing, Messitte seemed to acknowledge that the case would be ultimately decided by a higher court than his. For the plaintiffs, his ruling is an important first step in their quest to show that Trump crossed a constitutional line. In his opinion, the judge said they had legal standing “to challenge the actions of the president with respect to the Trump International Hotel and its appurtenances in Washington, D.C., as well as the Trump Organization with respect to them.” Some of the president’s critics are hopeful that the judge will eventually grant his legal opponents enough leeway to access a range of Trump’s business records, possibly including his tax returns, which he has not released. The plaintiffs claim that in hopes of currying presidential favor, government officials are patronizing Trump-owned properties instead of hotels or convention centers in which Washington or Maryland has a financial interest. Those payments, they contend, constitute illegal benefits that violate both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the Constitution. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that there was no proof that Washington or Maryland facilities are losing customers to Trump’s properties. Even if they are, they contend, that does not amount to a constitutional violation by the president. Last year, department lawyers persuaded a federal judge in New York City to throw out a lawsuit, filed by different plaintiffs, that alleged similar violations. The plaintiffs in that case have appealed.