White House Inc.?

The arcane term “emoluments,” or compensation, won’t do for a catchy protest slogan. But President Trump’s potential conflicts with the Constitution’s low-profile emoluments clauses, the focus of a new lawsuit, speak to a radical departure from precedent.

Filed Monday by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, the suit argues that Trump’s business with foreign regimes and the federal government runs afoul of constitutional provisions meant to combat corruption. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits officeholders from accepting foreign gifts or other benefits without Congress’ consent; its domestic counterpart bars federal or state compensation of the president beyond his salary.

For examples of questionable enrichment of Trump’s vast, opaque web of businesses, the lawsuit cites Saudi Arabian real estate purchases, Chinese trademark protection and several regimes’ patronage of Trump’s Washington hotel. It also notes Trump’s long-term lease from the federal government of that hotel, in a historic post office. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, which would reveal more about his enterprises, could become part of the case.

In a recent response to an earlier lawsuit, Trump’s Justice Department argues that the emoluments clauses don’t apply to the president’s businesses. But the modest precedents it names, such as Jefferson’s tobacco crop and Reagan’s California retirement benefits, serve to highlight Trump’s dramatic divergence from his predecessors in blurring public office with private gain.