A Manhattan federal judge suggested he could toss a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by accepting money from foreign governments through his vast business interests, saying that it’s a problem for Congress and not the courts.

“Clearly the Constitution was written so that Congress would make the determination,” Judge George Daniels said on Wednesday about the concerns raised by nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

“They don’t have to sit on their hands if they think there’s a problem. They can do something about it,” Judge Daniels quipped.

The judge made the remarks at a packed hearing over the Justice Dept.’s request to toss the lawsuit, which claims that Trump is violating emolument clauses of the Constitution by accepting money from foreign governments through his hotels and restaurants.

But Daniels said that those clauses of the Constitution were written in such a way that even if Congress believed the president was receiving “bribes” from foreign governments through his businesses, they could still OK it.

“I’m not sure there’s anything in the Constitution or in law that would prevent Congress from consenting … even if it they determined it was a bribe,” he said.

Lawyers for CREW objected to the notion that they should wait for Congress to act, arguing that President Trump should have sought permission before taking office.

“The problem here is the president hasn’t told Congress what payments he has accepted,” CREW lawyer Deepak Gupta argued.

Judge Daniels also debated the Justice Dept.’s lawyers over their assertion that “private business” transactions can’t violate emoluments clauses of the Constitution because the founding fathers weren’t worried about sitting presidents making money from their business interests.

At one point, Daniels described a hypothetical scenario in which a foreign government offers the president $1 million to sign a treaty, but agrees to get him the money by buying $1 million worth of hot dogs from the president’s hypothetical hot dog stand.

“Just because it’s a business transaction doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not an emolument,” the judge quipped.