This post was originally published on this site

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed President Donald Trump a legal victory, dismissing a lawsuit accusing the president of illegally profiting from his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., by accepting money from foreign governments.

The attorneys general from Maryland and the District of Columbia had brought the case, arguing that the president violated a constitutional clause that prohibits elected officials from doing business with foreign governments without permission from Congress.

But an appeals court panel ruled the attorneys general lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Reacting to the decision, President Trump tweeted, “Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt.”

Earlier this year, a federal district court in Maryland had allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the Maryland district court judge’s ruling as “so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts.”

The appeals court decision marks the first legal victory for President Trump as his legal team fights legal challenges on several fronts.

In a statement on Wednesday, Jay Sekulow, counsel to the president, hailed the appeals court ruling as “a complete victory.”

“The decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place,” Sekulow continued. “This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice.“

Earlier this week, in a separate emoluments case, congressional Democrats began issuing subpoenas as part of the discovery process in their case. Justice Department attorneys representing President Trump asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and halt the “extraordinary case,” as they called it. </s> The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday granted President Donald Trump a victory, dismissing a lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia accusing the president of violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

At the center of the lawsuit was whether the president’s continued ownership of his businesses, including a hotel in the nation’s capital, allowed him to make money from foreign and domestic interests in violation of the Constitution.
• Emoluments Suit Vs. Trump Now Personal As Well As Official

The three-judge panel voted unanimously in Trump’s favor, saying the District and Maryland lack standing to bring the suit against the president both in his official capacity and as an individual.

The lawsuit alleged Trump was benefiting and continued to benefit from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Georgia and Kuwait, holding events at the Trump International Hotel, among other properties.

As a result, the District and Maryland said facilities in which they have a public interest, including the Montgomery County Conference Center, D.C. Armory and Walter E. Washington Convention Center, were at a competitive disadvantage.

The court rejected claims that governments or groups trying to curry favor with the president would patronize his businesses, saying there was also a possibility that some officials would avoid Trump’s properties because he owned them.

“Even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel,” the court said in its decision.

Trump claimed victory in a pair of tweets late Wednesday morning, calling the suit “ridiculous” and “a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt.”

“I don’t make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of serving and doing a great job as your President,” Trump tweeted.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said he felt the court made the wrong decision, releasing a statement reading:

“We think that this panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong. Although the court described a litany of ways in which this case is unique, it failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought—in the Constitution—to prohibit. We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Nation’s original anti-corruption laws. We believe that the federal trial judge correctly decided that the plaintiffs have standing — and that discovery should go forward on President Trump’s receipt of emoluments. All Americans suffer when our chief executive is vulnerable to corrupt foreign influence. The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the President’s violation of the Constitution is plain error. We will continue to pursue our legal options to hold him accountable.” </s> President Donald Trump quickly celebrated the court's decision in the emoluments lawsuit against him and even seemed to adopt the court’s suggestion that serving as president was hurting the Trump businesses. | Alex Wong/Getty Images Legal Appeals court tosses emoluments suit against Trump

A federal appeals court panel has unanimously thrown out a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign and state governments while serving as president.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia — who joined together to file the suit against Trump in 2017 — lacked legal standing to object to his alleged violations of the Constitution’s clauses prohibiting receipt of so-called “emoluments” while in office.

Story Continued Below

Writing for the court, Judge Paul Niemeyer concluded that the case turned on unduly speculative claims that the Washington, D.C. and Maryland governments were being harmed by people favoring Trump’s D.C. hotel in order to curry favor with him.

“The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,” Niemeyer wrote.

“Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.”

Niemeyer indicated that the Trump name may be more of a liability for the luxury hotel at this point, than a benefit.

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

“Indeed, there is a distinct possibility — which was completely ignored by the District and Maryland, as well as by the district court — that certain government officials might avoid patronizing the Hotel because of the President’s association with it,” the judge wrote.

Trump quickly celebrated the decision and even seemed to adopt the court’s suggestion that serving as president was hurting the Trump businesses.

“Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case. I don’t make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of ....serving and doing a great job as your President (including accepting Zero salary!).”

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow also hailed the ruling, writing in a statement that “the decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place" and that "This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice."

The Justice Department, too, celebrated the outcome.

“We are pleased that the Fourth Circuit unanimously decided to dismiss this extraordinarily flawed case," Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement. "The court correctly determined that the plaintiffs improperly asked the courts to exceed their constitutional role by reviewing the President’s compliance with the Emoluments Clauses.”

Much of the appeals court decision painted the suit as fruitless because it would be difficult to discourage people from patronizing the hotel because of a perceived connection with Trump even if a court ordered him to disgorge any related income.

“Even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel,” Niemeyer added. “After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family. In short, the link between government officials’ patronage of the Hotel and the Hotel’s payment of profits or dividends to the President himself is simply too attenuated.”

Niemeyer said the problems Maryland and D.C. lawyers had explaining just what kind of order they wanted the district court to issue underscored the problems with the suit.

“The District and Maryland have manifested substantial difficulty articulating how they are harmed by the President’s alleged receipts of emoluments and the nature of the relief that could redress any harm so conceived,” Niemeyer wrote. “When plaintiffs before a court are unable to specify the relief they seek, one must wonder why they came to the court for relief in the first place.”

The attorneys general for Marland and the District of Columbia disputed the court's judgment and pledged to continue to pursue the president for his alleged violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause.

“We think that this panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong. Although the court described a litany of ways in which this case is unique, it failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought—in the Constitution—to prohibit," attorneys general Karl Racine of the District of Columbia and Brian Frosh of Maryland wrote in a joint statement. "We have not and will not abandon our efforts to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Nation’s original anti-corruption laws."

"All Americans suffer when our chief executive is vulnerable to corrupt foreign influence," they continued. "The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the President’s violation of the Constitution is plain error. We will continue to pursue our legal options to hold him accountable."

All three of the 4th Circuit judges assigned to hear the case are GOP appointees and two of them are widely considered to be the court’s most conservative veteran jurists. Niemeyer is an appointee of President George H.W. Bush. Joining in the rulings released Wednesday were Judges Dennis Shedd, a George W. Bush appointee, and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., a Trump appointee.

After learning of the judicial panel before oral arguments last March, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh slapped his own forehead with his hand, prompting Racine to console him. “Head up, head up,” Racine told his colleague.

During that court session, the appeals judges came close to accusing the Maryland-based district court judge handling the suit, Clinton appointee Peter Messitte, of impropriety for trying to engineer the challenge rather than responding to legal issues presented to him by the officials who brought the suit: the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C.

“It sounds like the court was doing something beyond just responding to the parties,” said Niemeyer.

“Does that not look like the district court is somehow involved in guiding this?” Shedd asked. “It looks a little bit odd.”

Last year, the Trump Organization announced that it had donated just over $151,000 to the U.S. Treasury to divest what the firm said were its profits associated with foreign-government business. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

At the oral arguments, Shedd pressed D.C. Solicitor General Loren AliKhan on what her office was looking to get out of the suit beyond a declaration that Trump is breaking the law.

“Do you think that will be a basis for a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment?” asked Shedd.

Shedd suggested then that Trump was being put in a no-win situation, where if he made more aggressive efforts to avoid business from foreign sources he would face further litigation.

“If he then said — a little reminiscent of the travel ban — no foreigners can stay in any of my properties, how long before the State of Maryland would sue him for discrimination?” the judge asked. “What you want to do is make it a guessing game for him.”

At the outset of Trump’s presidency, many ethics experts urged him to divest himself of his far-flung business empire, but he refused. Instead, Trump turned over day-to-day control of his businesses to two of his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump.

Just before taking office, Trump announced that he would donate to the U.S. Treasury all profits from foreign government-related business at his hotels and other enterprises. However, critics said the policy was vague and certain not to capture all the income Trump derived from foreign diplomats and others with ties to governments abroad.

Last year, the Trump Organization announced that it had donated just over $151,000 to the U.S. Treasury to divest what the firm said were its profits associated with foreign-government business.

However, the Trump business has said it intends to respect its guests’ privacy and not pry into who might be footing the bill for their stays at Trump hotels. As a result, it’s unclear if Trump’s firms are disgorging profits from hotel rooms booked by lobbyists or other third parties who may not disclose any connection to foreign governments.

For instance, during Trump’s inauguration in 2017, lobbyists working for the Saudi government paid more than $270,000 to put U.S. veterans up in hotel rooms at the Trump hotel in D.C. The move was part of an effort to defeat legislation that allows victims to pursue lawsuits against the Saudi regime over its alleged involvement in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.

While the main focus of the lawsuit has been on the influence foreign governments could wield through their patronage of Trump businesses, it also targets the money Trump-branded hotels and other ventures are receiving from state officials. A lesser-known clause of the Constitution prohibits the president from being separately compensated by any state.

Last October, a New York-based federal appeals court heard arguments in the first lawsuit filed over the emoluments issue — a case brought by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. A district court judge in New York threw out that case in December 2017, ruling that the watchdog group and other plaintiffs in the hospitality industry lacked the legal standing to pursue their claims.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel has yet to rule on efforts to revive that suit.

Meanwhile, a suit that more than 200 Democratic lawmakers brought over the emoluments issue remains alive in a federal court in Washington. Last September, a judge found that the lawmakers did have legal standing to sue, but the case has proceeded at a glacial pace.

That judge declined to allow Justice Department lawyers representing Trump to appeal at this point, but on Monday they filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that court to step in and block further action in the suit.

Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report. </s> Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump speaks during the opening ceremony for the Trump International Hotel, Old Post Office, in Washington, USA on October 26, 2016.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the legality of payments to President Donald Trump's hotels by foreigners during his tenure in the White House.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit unanimously ruled that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have legal standing to sue under a claim that Trump violated the so-called emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

That clause, contained in Article 1 of the Constitution, bars government officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign officials.

Trump still faces a similar lawsuit in Washington federal court filed by Democratic members of Congress.

On Monday, the Justice Department urged the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss that second suit.

In its ruling, the 4th Circuit appeals panel said that Washington and Maryland's interest in enforcing that clause "is so attenuated and abstract" that it raises the question of whether their lawsuit is an appropriate use of the court system.

The suit was the first ever to claim a president violated the emoluments clause, and the appeals panel said "not only is this suit extraordinary, it also has national significance and is of special consequence."

The panel ordered a federal district court judge in Maryland to dismiss the suit against Trump with prejudice, which would bar the plaintiffs from relaunching the case.

That judge had earlier denied Trump's bids to toss out the case, which led the president to appeal his decision to the 4th Circuit.

Trump quickly crowed about the 4th Circuit's decision on Twitter.

The president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, called the ruling "a complete victory."

The attorneys general for Washington and Maryland issued a joint statement saying they believed the appellate judges "got it wrong."

"Although the court described a litany of ways in which this case is unique, it failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought—in the Constitution—to prohibit," said Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine.

The two said they will "pursue our legal options," but did not name specific next steps.

They can ask the entire 4th Circuit to review the panel's ruling, or can escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, which has discretion over which cases it hears.

There is a good chance that they will ask the full court to review the decision, according to Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond Law School and an expert on federal judicial selection.

"I think a majority of the court is more moderate, or even liberal, compared to this panel, which is the most conservative panel you could draw of those 15 judges on this court," Tobias said. "I guess we will see something different out of the D.C. Circuit, but who knows."

The judges on the 4th Circuit panel that heard the case were Paul Niemeyer, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Dennis Shedd, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and Trump appointee A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. </s> FILE- This March 11, 2019 file photo, shows the north entrance of the Trump International in Washington D.C. A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency. In a significant legal victory for Trump, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, July 10, 2019, overturned a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who ruled last year that the lawsuit could move forward. (AP Photo/Mark Tenally, File)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court threw out a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel, handing Trump a significant legal victory Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the ruling of a federal judge in Maryland who said the lawsuit could move forward.

The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia sued in 2017, claiming Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting profits through foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel. The case is one of three that argue the president is violating the provision, which prohibits federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.

In the case before the 4th Circuit, the court found the two jurisdictions lack standing to pursue their claims against the president, and granted a petition for a rare writ of mandamus, directing U.S. District Court Judge Peter Messitte to dismiss the lawsuit.

Trump heralded the decision in a tweet, saying, “Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt.” Trump tweeted that he doesn’t make money but loses “a fortune” by serving as president.

“We are pleased that the Fourth Circuit unanimously decided to dismiss this extraordinarily flawed case,” Department of Justice spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement.

During oral arguments before the panel in March, lawyers for Maryland and the District said Trump’s status as president is a driving factor for foreign and domestic government officials to stay at his hotel.

Just blocks from the White House, the iconic Old Post Office quickly became a hot spot for lobbyists and foreign officials after it reopened in October 2016 as the Trump International Hotel. A public relations firm working for Saudi Arabia spent nearly $270,000 on food and rooms. The Philippine and Kuwaiti embassies have also had parties there.

Maryland and the District claim they have suffered harm because more people would stay at hotels in their jurisdictions if they weren’t eager to curry favor with the president by staying at his hotel.

The court, however, wrote that Maryland and the District’s “interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts.”

Trump’s legal team had argued that Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine — both Democrats — lack authority to sue the president in his official capacity. Trump’s lawyers also argued that the emoluments clause only bars compensation made in connection with services provided in his official capacity or in “an employment-type relationship” with a foreign or domestic government.

The 4th Circuit’s decision to hear the unusual mid-case appeal put the lawsuit on hold before deadlines to respond to subpoenas issued in December seeking tax returns, receipts and other records from more than 30 entities, including 13 Trump businesses and the federal agency that oversees the lease for Trump’s hotel.

Racine and Frosh said in a joint statement that they would not abandon their efforts.

“Although the court described a litany of ways in which this case is unique, it failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought — in the Constitution — to prohibit,” the attorneys general said.

Racine has previously said that if the panel ruled against Maryland and the District, the legal team would seriously consider asking for a rehearing before the full 4th Circuit. He has also said it wouldn’t surprise him if the case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

All three judges on the panel were nominated by Republican presidents: Paul Niemeyer, by George H.W. Bush; Dennis Shedd, by George W. Bush, and A. Marvin Quattlebaum, by Trump.

A similar case brought by nearly 200 congressional Democrats in the District of Columbia’s federal court also deals with the idea that Trump is using the presidency for his personal profit, but that case is uniquely different in that the Congress is specifically mentioned in the emoluments clause itself. On Monday, the Justice Department petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the D.C. appeals court and asked for a stay on the 37 subpoenas issued in that case.

Associated Press writers Tami Abdollah in Washington and Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Virginia, contributed to this report. </s> A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel, handing Trump a significant legal victory on Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the ruling of a federal judge in Maryland who said the lawsuit could move forward.

The state of Maryland and the District of Columbia sued in 2017, claiming Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting profits through foreign and domestic officials who stay at his luxury Washington hotel. The provision prohibits federal officials from accepting benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.

The 4th Circuit found the two jurisdictions lack standing to pursue their claims against the president, and granted a petition for a rare writ of mandamus, directing U.S. District Court Judge Peter Messitte to dismiss the lawsuit.

Trump heralded the decision in a tweet, saying, "Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt." Trump tweeted that he doesn't make money but loses "a fortune" by serving as president.

"The decision states that there was no legal standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place," Sekulow said a statement. "This latest effort at Presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice."

During oral arguments before the panel in March, lawyers for Maryland and the District said Trump's status as president is a driving factor for foreign and domestic government officials to stay at his hotel.

Just blocks from the White House, the iconic Old Post Office quickly became a hot spot for lobbyists and foreign officials after it reopened in October 2016 as the Trump International Hotel. A public relations firm working for Saudi Arabia spent nearly $270,000 on food and rooms. The Philippine and Kuwaiti embassies have also had parties there.

Maryland and the District claim they have suffered harm because more people would stay at hotels in their jurisdictions if they weren't eager to curry favor with the president by staying at his hotel.

Trump's legal team argued that Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine - both Democrats - lack authority to sue the president in his official capacity.

Trump's lawyers also argued that the emoluments clause only bars compensation made in connection with services provided in his official capacity or in "an employment-type relationship" with a foreign or domestic government.

The 4th Circuit's decision to hear the unusual mid-case appeal put the lawsuit on hold before deadlines to respond to subpoenas issued in December seeking tax returns, receipts and other records from more than 30 entities, including 13 Trump businesses and the federal agency that oversees the lease for Trump's hotel.

It appears likely the panel's ruling will not be the end of the case. Racine has said that if the panel ruled against Maryland and the District, the legal team would seriously consider asking for a rehearing before the full 4th Circuit. He also said it wouldn't surprise him if the case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A spokeswoman for Frosh's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Racine's office said a statement would be forthcoming.

All three judges on the panel were nominated by Republican presidents: Paul Niemeyer, by George H.W. Bush; Dennis Shedd, by George W. Bush, and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, by Trump.

A similar case brought by nearly 200 congressional Democrats in the District of Columbia's federal court also deals with the idea that Trump is using the presidency for his personal profit, but that case is uniquely different in that the Congress is specifically mentioned in the emoluments clause itself. On Monday, the Justice Department petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the D.C. appeals court and asked for a stay on the 37 subpoenas issued in that case.

Associated Press writers Tami Abdollah in Washington and Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Virginia, contributed to this report. </s> RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency.

In a significant legal victory for Trump, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday overturned a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who said last year the lawsuit could move forward.

Maryland and the District of Columbia sued in 2017, claiming Trump has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting profits through foreign and domestic officials who stay at his luxury Washington hotel.

The 4th Circuit found the two jurisdictions don’t have the standing to pursue their claims against the president.

Trump tweeted Wednesday that he had won “a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt.” </s> President Donald Trump heralded a win over the “Deep State” and the Democrats after a federal appeals court dismissed a case accusing him of violating the Constitution’s emoluments clauses in relation to his Washington, D.C., hotel.

“Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted after the court ruling.

“Unanimous decision in my favor from The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case. I don’t make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of serving and doing a great job as your President (including accepting Zero salary!).”

The Democratic attorney generals for the District of Columbia and Maryland brought the case against the president, claiming that earnings from Trump International Hotel violated the Constitution’s prohibitions regarding office holders receiving financial benefits from government entities and officials, either foreign or domestic.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, reads in part, “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.”

Additionally, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, provides: “The President … shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument [besides his salary] from the United States, or any of them.”

The complaint alleged by maintaining ownership of his hotel business, Trump earned “millions of dollars in payments, benefits, and other valuable consideration from foreign governments and persons acting on their behalf, as well as federal agencies and state governments.”

In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that neither the District of Columbia nor the state of Maryland has the standing to bring the suit against Trump.

“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties,” Judge Paul Niemeyer, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, wrote in the opinion.

Wednesday’s decision by the 4th Circuit halted “dozens of subpoenas issued to Trump’s businesses and government agencies for financial documents” related to Trump International Hotel, Reuters reported.

District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh contended the court made the wrong decision.

“The idea that the District of Columbia and Maryland are not harmed by the President’s violation of the Constitution is plain error,” they said in a joint statement.

RELATED: 2020 Dem Endorses McConnell Challenger, Humiliated When the Replies Start Rolling in

“We will continue to pursue our legal options to hold him accountable.”

Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, told Reuters the ruling is a “complete victory” for his client.

“This latest effort at presidential harassment has been dismissed with prejudice,” he said.

Since taking office, Trump has donated his $400,000 yearly salary to various government agencies each quarter.

Trump has given to the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Interior and Veterans Affairs.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards. </s> July 10 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland accusing President Donald Trump of violating emoluments clauses.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the two attorneys general didn't prove their case, which argued that Trump violated the Constitution by accepting money from domestic and foreign governments through his hotels and other businesses.

The panel also said the attorneys general couldn't show that Trump's ownership of the hotels created competition with other similar businesses like convention centers.

"The District and Maryland's interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties," Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote in the opinion.

The three-judge panel ordered the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.

The suit said the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., diverts customers away from businesses the District of Columbia and Maryland own, license or tax, causing those governments direct financial harm. The Trump International Hotel competes with convention facilities owned by the city's government, as well as with a resort in Prince George's County that generates tax revenue for Maryland.

The suit contended it wasn't clear whether Trump is making decisions in the country's best interest or out of "self-interested motivations grounded in the international and domestic business dealings in which President Trump's personal fortune is at stake."

Trump increases business from foreign diplomats and others doing business at his family's hotels and the restaurants, the suit alleged.

This wasn't the only lawsuit accusing Trump of violating the emoluments clause. A group of some 200 Democrats sued him on similar grounds. On Tuesday, they issued dozens of subpoenas seeking documents from Trump's private businesses.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismisses a lawsuit by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia against President Donald Trump, citing lack of legal standing in challenging payments to President Trump's private properties by foreign customers.