Emoluments suit can go forward.

WASHINGTON » A federal judge on Friday denied President Donald Trump’s request to stay a lawsuit alleging he is violating the Constitution by doing business with foreign governments, a decision that paves the way for plaintiffs to seek information about customers at his District of Columbia hotel.

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland, denied the Justice Department’s request that he pause the case to allow a higher court to intervene. And Messitte sharply questioned Trump’s position that his business does not improperly accept gifts or payments — called emoluments — as defined by the Constitution.

By Trump’s analysis, Messitte wrote, the term emoluments is the subject of such “substantial grounds of disagreement” that payments his business received from foreign governments could not qualify. The judge did not agree: “The Court finds this a dubious proposition.”

Messitte ordered the plaintiffs, the attorneys general for the District and Maryland, to submit a schedule for discovery — the process of producing evidence for the case — within 20 days. That decision is subject to appeal.

The judge has limited discovery to information related to Trump’s Washington hotel. This is the second civil case in which Trump’s business is now subject to discovery, after he agreed Tuesday to produce portions of his calendar from 2007 and 2008 in a defamation lawsuit brought by former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos.

In his 31-page opinion, Messitte rejected Trump’s argument that this case should be halted so it could be appealed midstream — a request typically granted in extraordinary circumstances, where an unresolved legal question makes it hard to go on.

Justice Department attorneys argued the lawsuit should ultimately be dismissed because it was a burden for Trump, distracting from his duties as president. The department issued a statement signaling it would appeal again.

“The Department of Justice disagrees with and is disappointed by this ruling,” said spokeswoman Kelly Laco. “This case, which should have been dismissed, presents important questions that warrant immediate appellate review.”