But Thursday's case is different in that the plaintiffs in the suit — members of Congress — are mentioned in the clause itself, and they believe that Congress not only has a right but is required, as part of their jobs, to weigh in on potential emoluments such as a $6.5 million condo purchase by the Qatari government or a Chinese-government owned company's investment in a project that will include a Trump-branded hotel and golf course in Indonesia.
"These members of Congress are injured every time the president accepts a foreign government benefit, whether that benefit is a trademark from China or proceeds from a government buying space in a Trump property," said Brianne Gorod, the nonprofit Constitutional Accountability Center's chief counsel who will argue the plaintiffs' case Thursday.
Separate emoluments cases in Maryland and New York are based on a claim of competitive standing, arguing that the president's businesses are being used by lobbyists, government officials and political groups to curry favor with Trump, and thus have an unfair advantage over other businesses. The New York case was dismissed and is being appealed. Justice Department lawyers have argued that such business activity, including hotel room stays, isn't an emolument.
Thursday's arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan will be solely focused on whether the lawmakers have standing to sue the president by showing they've suffered harm from the alleged violation of the clause.