The court said the attorneys general lacked standing to bring the suit in the ruling that puts an end to the subpoenas seeking Trump's financial information. "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!)".
The lawsuit, brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C., claimed that earnings from the hotel and its related businesses violated prohibitions against receiving benefits from foreign governments, the USA, or individual states.
The appeals court threw out other arguments that the state attorneys general had brought to claim that that they had standing to sue.
"Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case", he wrote.
A separate lawsuit over Trump's business interests, filed by some congressional Democrats, remains pending in federal court in Washington.
A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which is representing Trump in multiple emoluments lawsuits, said in a written statement to Newsweek that it is "pleased that the Fourth Circuit unanimously chose to dismiss this extraordinarily flawed case".
The three judges who heard the appeal were nominated to the Fourth Circuit by Republican presidents: Niemeyer, by George H.W. Bush; Dennis Shedd, by George W. Bush; and Marvin Quattlebaum, by Trump.Читайте также: Gold rallies as interest-cut expectations weaken dollar
Shortly before he becoming president, Mr Trump stepped back from running his company - the Trump Organization - however he still retains ownership of the real estate empire.
President Donald Trump arrives to speak about kidney health at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Wednesday, July 10, 2019, in Washington.
The government's lawyers also argued that even if Mr Trump's account establishes a public form, blocking users should not be illegal because they can still access the president's tweets by other means. The court also questioned whether certain government officials would avoid the hotel because of the president's connection.
"The District and Maryland's theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President. After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family". "We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Nation's original anti-corruption laws".
The plaintiffs argued that these payments are violations of the foreign emoluments clause, while the Justice Department calls them market rate deals that shouldn't be considered emoluments.
Trump quickly celebrated Wednesday's ruling and appeared to embrace the court's suggestion that the presidency could hurt Trump's businesses.
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, both Democrats, have said they would consider appealing for a rehearing by a full panel of the 4th Circuit and would not be surprised to see the case reach the Supreme Court. These gifts often end up in the national archives or in the presidential libraries of the presidents who received them (in which case they would be on loan from the US government).
The hotel is located in Old Post Office Pavilion, a federal building leased to Trump's business, in an arrangement that plaintiffs argue violates the domestic emoluments clause.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог