The Foreign Emoluments Clause — specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution — declares that “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.” The Domestic Emoluments Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 — states that “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

By ruling that the word “emolument” in these clauses means “profit,” “gain” or “advantage” in essentially any form from a foreign or domestic government, Judge Messitte has correctly found a way to enforce the framers’ anti-corruption mechanism. The framers understood the potential corrosive influence of commercial profit in the executive and wrote the Constitution “against a background of profound concern” regarding “possible foreign influence upon the president (and, to be sure, upon other federal officials),” as Judge Messitte noted. They designed the Emoluments Clauses as a prophylactic measure to prevent actual corruption and the specter of corruption — where a foreign power (or a domestic government) buys favorable policy decisions by engaging with the head of the executive branch commercially, outside the normal avenues of state.

Whether or not the president has actually been corrupted in such a way, his actions in violation of the clauses have raised widespread concern and the perception at home and abroad that he can be bought. This is why our jurisdictions came to the conclusion that the only avenue for protecting our citizens was to bring this lawsuit — to, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 73, protect the country from a president whose business entanglements might allow foreign actors to “tempt him by largesses, to surrender at [his] discretion his judgment to their inclinations.”

This ruling represents a major leap forward in understanding how Mr. Trump and his family are profiting off the presidency. The court has already ordered the preservation of Mr. Trump’s business records. We plan to examine them expeditiously and carefully when our lawsuit enters the discovery phase to uncover the extent of Mr. Trump’s violations through his Washington, D.C., hotel, where an endless retinue of foreign and domestic governments have spent lavish amounts of money since the election, all to the president’s financial benefit. (Though his family members and longtime associates run the Trump Organization businesses, he retains ownership.)

Wednesday’s ruling was not the last in this case, but the decision has instant ramifications far beyond the District of Columbia and Maryland. By ruling that the term “emoluments” means, and that the founders intended it to mean, profit, gain or advantage, we know that other instances of profit, gain or advantage that Mr. Trump receives from foreign or domestic governments, even if not the subject of this lawsuit, violate the Constitution. Other plaintiffs may be able to challenge them. Mr. Trump apparently agrees that other government officials should not “monetize their public service” — which is why he is threatening to revoke the security clearances of some of his critics. We should apply the same standard to him.