The order was issued without comment or contradiction.
There were two cases that dealt with the case before the judges. One of them was initiated by lawyers for Maryland and Washington, DC, who argued that Trump was violating the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign and domestic governments by the Trump International Hotel in DC. They said they were disadvantaged to compete for affairs of foreign and civil servants who could choose to do business with entities in which the president has a financial interest to give the favor.
A second case has been filed by various members of the hospitality industry who own or work in hotels or restaurants in New York and Washington, who have also argued that they have a competitive backlog.
“I am proud of the work we have done to ensure that the Constitution’s anti-corruption norms are not forgotten,” he wrote.
The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which had a stake in the cases against Trump, said on Monday that the lawsuits “have made the American people aware for four years of the pervasive corruption that results from a president who has a global enterprise maintains and takes benefits and payments from foreign and domestic governments. ‘
“Only Trump who lost the presidency and left office ended these corrupt constitutional violations, stopped these groundbreaking lawsuits,” Noah Bookbinder, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.
The centerpiece of the case was the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which has faced few judicial interpretations since it was written nearly 250 years ago.
The Emoluments Clause prohibits a president from receiving any ‘compensation’ or profit from a ‘king, prince or foreign state’, unless Congress gives permission. The so-called household compensation clause gives the right to receive a salary and benefits pre-determined by Congress, but prohibits him from receiving “any other compensation from the United States.”
“The Supreme Court’s trial judge not only erases two lower court rulings, but also orders that the entire dispute be dismissed, and that the questions raised by Trump’s conduct on the Emoluments clause be left for another time. , “said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“Usually, the court only takes such a step when the party files a case while the appeal is pending, unlike here where the disputes became difficult because Trump’s term ended,” he added. “The orders of today indicate that the court is increasingly prepared to invoke this doctrine to avoid highly charged political disputes, even if the weakness was not caused by the parties winning below.”
A lower court granted 38 subpoenas served on five federal agencies requesting information about money spent by the agencies at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.
In court documents, lawyers from Trump’s Justice Department argued that the lower court ‘fundamentally erred in the case brought by Maryland and DC’ when it allowed this unprecedented and extraordinary lawsuit to continue ‘and the alleged injury’ called weakening and speculative ‘.
DC Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a joint statement Monday that their case would set a precedent that would help prevent someone else from running for the presidency. or use another federal office for personal financial gain like President Trump did. over the past four years. ‘
“(Trump) still has the money. If any other federal employee violates the compensation clause, they must forfeit the money,” Shaub wrote.
This story has been updated with additional details and response.