Attorneys general of Maryland and Washington say he violates the constitution by failing to separate his public responsibilities with his private interests

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

Donald Trump has committed “unprecedented constitutional violations” by failing to appropriately disentangle his public responsibilities as president with his private interests as a businessman, according to a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington on Monday.

The lawsuit, filed by DC attorney general Karl Racine and Maryland attorney general Brian Frosh in a Maryland federal court, alleges that Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the US constitution by failing to relinquish ownership of his vast business holdings.

Concerns over Trump still allowing his company to profit from foreign officials Read more

“The emoluments clauses are a firewall against presidential corruption,” Frosh told journalists at a press conference in Washington on Monday. “And the one thing we know about the president is he understands the value of walls. This is one he can’t climb over and it’s one he can’t dig underneath.”

The emoluments clause stipulates that the president and government officials cannot benefit financially from the office they hold and prohibits them from receiving gifts and payments of anything of value from a foreign government or the states.



Trump did not fully divest from his global business empire after being elected president, instead retaining ownership and handing over control to his two adult sons to run the day to day operations.

“President Trump’s continued ownership interest business empire, which renders him deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors, violates the constitution and calls into question the rule of law and the integrity of the country’s political system,” the lawsuit alleges.



The suit asks for a “declaratory judgement” that Trump has violated the emoluments clauses and that he will continue to do so until he divests entirely from his businesses. It is also seeking an immediate injunction that forces the president to stop violating the clauses.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer brushed off the case as another example of “partisan politics” and said: “We’ll continue to move to dismiss this case in the normal course of business.”

“The president’s interests, as previously discussed, do not violate the emoluments clause,” Spicer said.

“It’s not hard to conclude that partisan politics may be one of the motivations behind the suit,” Spicer continued. “The suit was filed by two Democratic attorney generals. The lawyers driving the suit are an advocacy group with partisan ties.”

During the press conference, Racine and Frosh denied that the case was partisan or political motivated and invited Republican attorneys general to join their lawsuit.

“We are a nation of laws, and no one including the president is above the law,” Racine said. He added: “What are we to do? Sit back and allow the president to police himself?”

We do not sue the president of the United States casually Maryland ​attorney ​general Brian Frosh

This is not the first federal lawsuit to accuse the president of violating the emoluments clause of the constitution, but the case is novel. No state has accused a president of violating the emoluments clause.



“We do not sue the president of the United States casually,” Frosh said. Trump’s business ties are unprecedented and force the American people to “question day after day whether actions are being taken to benefit the United States or to benefit Donald Trump”.

The attorneys general cite as examples of Trump breaching the clause reports that foreign governments and government-related entities are staying and hosting events at the Trump international hotel in Washington, buying leases in Trump buildings at Trump Tower in Manhattan, and offering trademark deals and real estate permits.

Of the international hotel in Washington, Racine said: “Foreign governments are spending money there in order to curry favor with the president of the United States.”

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh said they will seek the disclosure of Trump’s personal tax returns to better understand the extent of the president’s foreign business interests.

A spokeswoman for the justice department declined to comment on the lawsuit. But the justice department responded to a similar suit last week and asked for the case to be thrown out.

Earlier this year, legal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) filed a federal lawsuit in the in the southern district of New York alleging that Trump violated the constitution by failing to sufficiently extract himself from his expansive business empire, which has interests in more than two dozen countries. That lawsuit is seeking a court order to compel Trump to divest from his business holdings on grounds that the constitution prohibits him from making money from foreign governments or making a profit beyond the presidential salary.



On Friday, the government argued that the constitution does not prevent the president from profiting from his businesses while in office.

Frosh called the justice department’s argument “remarkable” and said: “If the justice department is right, the emoluments clause has no meaning whatsoever.”

“It puts democracy at risk when the president is corruptible,” Frosh said. “The payments that he’s received may be corrupting him – they certainly violate the constitution.”