IT IS a testament to the profound abnormality of Donald Trump’s operation that, even as one outrageous headline follows another, it retains its power to shock. An example of this was contained in the lawsuit Melania Trump filed on February 6th against Mail Media, which operates the Daily Mail’s website.

The lawsuit, filed in a court in Manhattan, argues that some lurid and inaccurate allegations about the first lady, which were reported by the Daily Mail last August and later retracted, had cost her $150m in lost money-making opportunities.

Without referring explicitly to Mrs Trump’s position as first lady, the lawsuit implied that that was the basis for the claim. It argued that Mrs Trump had “the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity … to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world”.

Mrs Trump first began legal action against the Mail last September, when she sued the paper and a blogger in Maryland, Webster Tarpley, who had also published the scurrilous claims, which originated in her native Slovenia. The Mail published a swift retraction and apology; last week, a Maryland court said it could not hear the case against Mail Media because the firm was not based in the state, but that the suit against the blogger could proceed. On February 7th, Mrs Trump’s lawyers said she had settled with Mr Tarpley, a 70-year-old historian with a fondness for conspiracy theories, for a “substantial sum.”

The implication that Mrs Trump hoped to make money during her stint as first lady, on the back of the fame it will bring her, is problematic in a couple of ways. First, it reinforces a fear raised by many of Mr Trump’s critics that he and his family could see the presidency as an opportunity to line their pockets. That the recently-opened Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC has made use of the presidency for marketing purposes has also exacerbated these fears. “We are waiting for you Mr President. Thank you!” the hotel tweeted on January 20th, inauguration day. Since then, the hotel business has said it hopes to triple its number of properties in America.

In theory, Mr Trump had nothing to do with that decision. The business is being run by his two adult sons. But he has contributed to fears about the potential for conflicts of interest in his administration. He has refused to publish his tax returns, which would shed light on his murky web of interests, or to divest himself of businesses around the world, despite a request from the Office of Government Ethics to do so.

On February 8th the president attacked Nordstrom, a chain of department stores, on Twitter after it decided to stop stocking his daughter Ivanka’s fashion range. "My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!" he wrote in a tweet. The retailer had explained that it was dropping Ms Trump’s products because not enough people bought them.

Whether the first lady would be permitted by the constitution to cash in on her mega-celebrity is uncertain. The Foreign Emoluments and Domestic Emoluments clauses ban those in public office from receiving cash or gifts. The job of first lady is not formally a public office. But it seems likely that if she were enriched by her position, the president would also gain, which the constitution would appear to forbid.

Another fuzzier concern about Mrs Trump’s legal claim is for the dignity of the presidency. Even if Mrs Trump could argue that she is not covered by laws forbidding public servants from cashing in, it seems fairly outrageous for her to imply that the exalted positon of first lady could be a fine opportunity to flog Melania-branded baubles—potentially including, according to her lawsuit, “apparel, accessories, shoes, jewellery, cosmetics, hair care, skin care, and fragrance."