'That's insane': Ethics and legal experts weigh in on Supreme Court’s Trump emoluments decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided against hearing a case involving former President Donald Trump and the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a U.S. president from profiting from a foreign government. CNN's Ariane de Vogue reports that the High Court, on January 25, "instructed the lower courts to wipe away a previous lower court opinion that went against Trump because he is no longer in office."
BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses as moot lawsuits over whether Donald Trump illegally profited off his presidency… https://t.co/jeJtQm1bef— The Associated Press (@The Associated Press) 1611586890
De Vogue notes that this ruling "leaves unresolved a novel question raised in the case because Trump, unlike other presidents, did not use a blind trust when he assumed the presidency, but instead, continued to retain an interest in his businesses and let those businesses to take money from foreign and domestic governments."
Here are some reactions to the High Court's ruling:
SCOTUS just dismissed our Emoluments Clause litigation against Trump as moot. (We agreed it was now moot so that's… https://t.co/eNqStRZn0y— Deepak Gupta (@Deepak Gupta) 1611586982
Says a lot about how slow the U.S. court system is that emoluments clause cases re: Trump couldn't get through the… https://t.co/5m3nMmimNK— Steven Dennis (@Steven Dennis) 1611586205
The Supreme Court basically says president's do not have to abide by the Constitutional Emoluments clause.… https://t.co/0wsxnorRNM— I AM the Manager! (@I AM the Manager!) 1611586519
@AP Many errors. USA Supreme Court, matters that are likely to be repeated in the future cannot be moot.— Centre For Constitutional Order (@Centre For Constitutional Order) 1611587507
Our first field hearing before Trump took office was on emoluments. It’s beyond clear that presidents should not be… https://t.co/srcZrZvyhK— Rep. Gerry Connolly (@Rep. Gerry Connolly) 1611588316
@1100Penn 33 foreign governments had representatives spotted at the Trump Hotel DC. Trump's attorneys' masterful u… https://t.co/kKOExeuXEk— Zach Everson (@Zach Everson) 1611586252
This is significant. If Trump didn't violate the emoluments clause, it may never be possible to argue that anyone h… https://t.co/o55QJMBjLH— Elias Cepeda (@Elias Cepeda) 1611586418
Given the pace of the emoluments litigation -- it started almost as soon as Trump took office and was nowhere near… https://t.co/mRqXpgfSJy— Brad Heath (@Brad Heath) 1611585784
This is one more reason why Congress must pass The Protecting Our Democracy Act, which would ensure that the emolum… https://t.co/CiTPbhrE6S— Sean Eldridge (@Sean Eldridge) 1611589217
