The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as moot a case claiming that former President Donald Trump had violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses at his Washington, D.C., hotel.
The case was brought forward by the district and Maryland, claiming that Trump had violated the constitutional provisions by making the D.C. Trump Hotel an attractive spot for those seeking to curry favor with the then-president. The governments argued that Trump used his hotel to funnel booking expenses from foreign governments directly to his business accounts, to the detriment of other local businesses.
An appeals court last year ruled in favor of the governments, leading the Justice Department to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
“This case is another example of presidential harassment,” said Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers, at the time.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case and vacated the lower court ruling against Trump because now that he is no longer president, he doesn’t stand to benefit from his hotel’s placement near the White House.
When Trump entered office in 2017, he broke precedent by retaining his business interests, instead shifting management of his holdings to his children. The case appealed to the Supreme Court is one of a series of complaints raised against Trump, all of which claim that his business interests conflicted with his presidential role.
Trump, however, while the case proceeded, was reportedly attempting to sell the D.C. Trump Hotel, albeit unsuccessfully.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, D.C. and Maryland Attorneys General Karl Racine and Brian Frosh said in a joint statement that they considered their case against Trump to be a moral victory, if only because the lower court ruling set a precedent for future emoluments clauses violations.
“This decision will serve as precedent that will help stop anyone else from using the presidency or other federal office for personal financial gain the way that President Trump has over the past four years,” they said.
