Frosh subpoenas businesses of president in emoluments suit

emoluments case.”

The case centers on foreign dignitaries paying to stay at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Frosh and Racine say Trump’s ownership of a business that accepts money from foreign governments violates the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause. The framers of the Constitution adopted the clause out of concern that foreign heads of state could exert influence over the president or other federal officials.

Also subpoenaed were the federal departments of agriculture, commerce, defense and the treasury, as well as the U.S. General Services Administration — agencies that may have patronized the luxury hotel, which hosts meetings and events. Trump’s company leases the hotel from the GSA.

Frosh said Tuesday that the case is a reaction to Trump’s unprecedented behavior.

“There has never been a president who has ever walked this close to the line,” the attorney general said in an interview.

Maryland and the District are seeking an injunction, he said, prohibiting future violations of the emoluments clause and requiring Trump “to put the people’s interest first.”

The White House declined comment, said spokesman Judd Deere. The Justice Department also would not comment.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization — which oversees hotels and other business interests — said in an email that last February it “voluntarily donated to the U.S. Treasury all profits identified as being from foreign government patronage at our hotels and similar businesses. We intend to make a similar contribution in 2019.”

Frosh said it is possible he could seek the tax returns of Trump, who has declined to make them public. The president’s stance to keep them private is a break from tradition, but violates no laws.

“We’re not ruling that out,” Frosh said. “In this first round of discovery, we want to get what is absolutely essential to our case. We think we can get it perhaps without the tax returns.”

The Justice Department has argued that the emoluments clause is being applied too broadly in the case and should not apply to the president’s business interests.

The department also has challenged the suit by asserting that the plaintiffs lack standing because they could not clearly show how their residents had been harmed by the payments. But U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte rejected that argument in declining to dismiss the case in March.

Messitte’s order Monday began the case’s discovery phase. In discovery, each side can request that the other answer specific questions or produce documents.

The subpoenas are designed to solicit information to show that commercial interests in Maryland and the District — such as competing hotels — could be harmed by any advantage the Trump hotel enjoys through its association with the president.

Eighteen entities said to compete with the Trump hotel also were subpoenaed.

Organizations can be cited for contempt for ignoring subpoenas.

At least one state — Maine — also patronized the hotel. Its governor and others visited the president and other officials in 2017. Maine was included on the list of subpoenas provided by Frosh.