A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed an emoluments lawsuit against President Donald Trump. But don't bet on it being the last we'll hear of this prickly question.
The lawsuit, brought by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia in 2017, accuses Trump of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel. It is the same iconic Old Post Office-turned-hotel just blocks from the White House where on Oct. 26, 2016, the then-Republican presidential nominee and his family held a public ribbon cutting/campaign speech on national television.
Less than a month later, Trump became president, and the old post office - still owned by the government but leased to Trump - quickly became a hot spot for lobbyists and foreign officials. A public relations firm working for Saudi Arabia spent nearly $270,000 on food and rooms. The Philippine and Kuwaiti embassies have had parties there. After all, if you were trying to impress the new president or curry his favor, where would you choose to eat, drink and spend the night - Best Western or the Trump International Hotel?
The emoluments clause - written by our nation's founders in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution - is quite direct: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Emolument is defined as remuneration or payment. The word traces back to the Latin word emolumentum, meaning profit or gain.
On Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who had said the lawsuit had merit and could move forward. In overturning that first ruling, the appellate judges didn't address the foreign gains at all. Instead, they said Maryland and the District of Columbia "lack standing" to pursue their claims - that the state and district suffered harm because more people would stay at hotels in their jurisdictions if they weren't eager to curry favor with the president by staying at his hotel.
Trump, of course, claimed victory, tweeting: "Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt. Unanimous decision in my favor ... on the ridiculous Emoluments Case. I don't make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of serving and doing a great job as your President (including accepting Zero salary!).
By Wednesday afternoon, the plaintiffs said they will appeal and fully expect the case to be heard sooner or later by the U.S. Supreme Court. But Maryland and the District of Columbia aren't the only ones suing Trump over the emoluments clause question.
In mid-2017, Democratic members of Congress sued the president over foreign money flowing into his global business empire. It didn't get much attention at the time, as it came in the same week as a gunman's attack on Republican congressmen practicing for a charity baseball game - along with the revelation that the president himself was under investigation for obstruction of justice.
Congress' 37-page complaint notes that the Founding Fathers were concerned that foreign powers could interfere with American affairs with gifts, "benefits and rewards to the nation's chief executive to subvert his loyalty." But this case used a slightly different tact, alleging that Trump is violating the Constitution by failing to seek Congress's permission before accepting financial benefits from foreign governments.
This past Monday, Trump's Justice Department attorneys asked a federal appeals court to issue an emergency order halting that lawsuit as well, asserting that an earlier judge erred in deeming that members of Congress had "legal standing" to sue the president.
A third and similar emoluments lawsuit, filed just days after Trump's inauguration by a government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also is under appeal after the judge in that case said that the watchdog group did not have standing.
Are we sensing a pattern here?
Who does a president harm by violating the Constitution if not other businesses when his prohibited profits and "gifts" from foreign governments take money from legitimate business coffers, or if not members of Congress charged with government oversight, or citizens like those in a watchdog group who worry that their government is corrupt?
All of those cases revolve around the continuing concern that money, profits, possible favors and motivation are at the heart of all things that trouble the Trump presidency. And the Trump International Hotel/former historic post office is but one cash register. What about memberships and visits to Mar-a-Lago, golf games at Trump's Bedminster Golf Club, leases at any of the various Trump Towers around the world? And remember: The brokers of the would-be Trump Tower Moscow testified to a Congressional committee that the penthouse was to be offered free to Russian President Vladimir Putin. And why not? Clearly, the hacking of Democratic emails and Russian "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and meddling in America's 2016 election was a foreign "gift" to Trump. Can we say quid pro quo?
All the while, members of the Republican Party in our Congress and Senate pretend nothing is wrong.
We all know there is something fundamentally wrong. But apparently we'll have to hit the GOP over the head with a landslide Democratic vote in 2020 to get anything done about it.