Law & the Courts

The Corner

DOJ Headed in the Right Direction on Foreign Emoluments Clause

The plaintiffs in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump argue that President Trump has violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which reads in part: “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 plaintiffs say the current president is in violation because he does business with foreign governments.

But the evidence is that the Foreign Emoluments Clause was never meant to apply to the president, and the consequence is that the plaintiffs’ case should be a non-starter. Legal scholars Seth Barrett Tillman and Josh Blackman have filed amicus briefs in multiple courts making that argument, noting that “our Founding-era presidents openly received diplomatic gifts from foreign governments” and pointing to a document drafted by Alexander Hamilton that left the president off an exhaustive list of officeholders. While the clause applies to “appointed officers,” they say, it does not apply to “elected officials.”

Tillman and Blackman’s position is backed by the evidence. But some liberal law professors have argued against them on the basis of other historical documents (apparently rediscovering the value of originalism). Their arguments, however, have ranged from the dishonest to the tendentious.

Before today, the Department of Justice had not acknowledged Tillman and Blackman’s position. In 2009, the DOJ wrote an opinion saying that the clause “surely” applied to the president. Now, it appears to be shifting its stance: In a letter sent to the judge overseeing the case, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate wrote that “the government has not conceded that the President is subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

The government wants to dismiss the lawsuit, and has attacked the plaintiffs on other grounds including their standing to bring the case. But even if CREW v. Trump proceeds, the scholarship of Tillman and Blackman makes it clear that the plaintiffs have misinterpreted the Constitution and that the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to the president. If it is indeed nodding to their work, the DOJ is headed in the right direction in this case.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More