WEBVTT - U.S. Denies Trump Thinks Emoluments Clause is Phony

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.400
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Remember how President

0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:25.200
<v Speaker 1>Trump described the Constitution's emoluments clauses in October. I don't

0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 1>think you people in this phonium monuments laws. And by

0:00:28.840 --> 0:00:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the way, I would say that it's cost to be

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>anywhere from two to five billion dollars to be president. Well,

0:00:35.280 --> 0:00:38.839
<v Speaker 1>during arguments last Thursday before a fifteen judge of Pellet

0:00:38.840 --> 0:00:43.680
<v Speaker 1>panel in Richmond, Virginia, a Justice Department lawyer Hashimmupan tried

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:46.800
<v Speaker 1>to walk that comment back when Judge Robert King put

0:00:46.840 --> 0:00:51.879
<v Speaker 1>him on the spot. He characterizes phony evoluments clause. Now,

0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 1>what's the irrelevancy of that, honor? I think any fair

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:57.560
<v Speaker 1>characterization of what he said is he's calling the cleans

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:00.960
<v Speaker 1>here for he's not the exist and some minds he

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:05.560
<v Speaker 1>called them bony evoluments clause. I understand your, honor, And

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:07.480
<v Speaker 1>it was either a tweet or off the cuffs team,

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 1>and they are two clauses of the Constitution written in

0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 1>an on bank panel of the Fourth Circuit was considering

0:01:16.000 --> 0:01:19.640
<v Speaker 1>one of three lawsuits accusing Trump of flouting the constitutions

0:01:19.640 --> 0:01:23.760
<v Speaker 1>emoluments clauses. This lawsuit by the Attorneys General of Maryland

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:26.840
<v Speaker 1>in d C. Joining me as Josh Blackman, a professor

0:01:26.880 --> 0:01:31.040
<v Speaker 1>of constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law, Josh,

0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:36.120
<v Speaker 1>is there a precedent here or is this completely uncharted territory? Well,

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>until two thousand and seventeen, there are zero litigation over

0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:44.840
<v Speaker 1>both the Foreign and Domestical Mouths clause. These are fairly

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 1>obscure provisions of the Constitution that were never ever litigated,

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:51.880
<v Speaker 1>and is really not much precedent on them. In the

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Fourth Circuit case, a three judge panel had thrown the

0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:59.160
<v Speaker 1>case out and ruled in favor of President Trump, and

0:01:59.200 --> 0:02:03.960
<v Speaker 1>then the entire circuit and on bank panel heard the case.

0:02:04.360 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 1>How unusual is it to have an on bank panel

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>in the Fourth Circuit. It's fairly rare for the Court

0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 1>of Appeals to hear case on blank. I have to

0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>guess maybe ten to twenty cases a year out of

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:20.920
<v Speaker 1>hundreds ever make it to the full court. But the

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.000
<v Speaker 1>Fourth Circuit heard on bonk on a fairly narrow and

0:02:24.080 --> 0:02:27.720
<v Speaker 1>really not a very sexy issue. It wasn't on bonk

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.720
<v Speaker 1>hearing for whether the president was violenting the Constitution. The

0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 1>question they're concerned what happens when the district court screws

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:40.079
<v Speaker 1>up in this case the lower court declined to allow

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:42.560
<v Speaker 1>an appeal in the middle of the case, And what

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 1>happens when the district court does not allow an appeal? Well,

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>the Court of Appeals that, well, too bad, we don't care.

0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna dismiss the case outright. And that probably wasn't

0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:53.720
<v Speaker 1>the right path. I think the Fourth Circuit will say

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:56.680
<v Speaker 1>that when the district court won't allow an appeal, you

0:02:56.720 --> 0:02:59.000
<v Speaker 1>have to let the case go through its natural conclusion

0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:01.920
<v Speaker 1>before you can take it to the quot repeals. You

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:04.400
<v Speaker 1>can't do this sort of stop gap appeal in the middle.

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>I mean, that's probably what the quote will hold here.

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.519
<v Speaker 1>But the judges did discuss the standing issue whether the

0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>d C and Maryland a g S had standing to

0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:18.400
<v Speaker 1>bring the suit. That's right. The basis of these suits

0:03:19.160 --> 0:03:23.400
<v Speaker 1>is actually fairly business related. In Maryland, the Maryland government

0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>owns a hotel, the Befesdan Marriott, and in d C.

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:31.840
<v Speaker 1>The DC government owns the DC Convention Center, and these

0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>businesses are competing in theory at least with Trump International

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:40.119
<v Speaker 1>Hotel in Washington, d C. And these businesses have said

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.360
<v Speaker 1>that they are at an unfair competitive advantage because they

0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>can't offer foreign guests this sort of benefit of staying

0:03:47.480 --> 0:03:50.280
<v Speaker 1>in the President's hotel. That's certain perk that they can't

0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 1>hand out. And they've argued because they're being injured competitively,

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:56.560
<v Speaker 1>they can go to federal court to seek a remedy

0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 1>for their injury, which in this case will be telling

0:03:58.720 --> 0:04:02.120
<v Speaker 1>the president to stop except thing these sorts of foreign payments.

0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:07.800
<v Speaker 1>There were three hours of arguments and they seemed really spirited,

0:04:08.040 --> 0:04:12.840
<v Speaker 1>sharp questions, challenging the attorneys on many different points. Judge

0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:17.720
<v Speaker 1>Harvey Wilkinson dominated the questioning, we're up here making it up,

0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:22.560
<v Speaker 1>we're weighing in. There's no history that authorizes it, there's

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:26.240
<v Speaker 1>no precedent that authorizes it, there's no right conferred that

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:33.279
<v Speaker 1>authorizes it. This one's a lemon. It's it's the weakest

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>of the cases that are springing up like Jimson weed

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:39.680
<v Speaker 1>against the presidency in this environment. Well I was in

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>the court in Richmond nearly three hours for like a

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:47.240
<v Speaker 1>lot longer to the argument, Judge Wilkinson is fairly conservative

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:49.640
<v Speaker 1>in the old school sense. He does not believe that

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:54.960
<v Speaker 1>the court should inject themselves into these fairly aggressive sorts

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.479
<v Speaker 1>of cases. There's no experience, there's no history, there's no

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:01.040
<v Speaker 1>tradition of the court tell of the president what kind

0:05:01.040 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 1>of payments you can accept. This was usually something worked

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>out between the branches, and I think Judge Wilkinson was

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 1>worried about what happens if the courts take up this

0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 1>novel claim and inject themselves and what could very well

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:15.320
<v Speaker 1>be an impeachable offense. I think Wilkinson would say, this

0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:16.960
<v Speaker 1>is not for the course of the slives for the

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:21.120
<v Speaker 1>political branches to handle. The Justice Department lawyers ended up

0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:25.839
<v Speaker 1>explaining away a comment that President Trump made about the

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:29.520
<v Speaker 1>emoluments clause as phony. How did that come across in

0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:33.240
<v Speaker 1>the courtroom. Well, look, President Trump makes his lawyers a

0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:35.960
<v Speaker 1>very hard job because he says and tweets all this

0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 1>really dumb stuff. So at one point Trump stated, or

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:41.159
<v Speaker 1>maybe he tweeted, you know that we have this phony

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:44.359
<v Speaker 1>moluments clause, right, and the judge as well, well the

0:05:44.360 --> 0:05:47.960
<v Speaker 1>president these moluments clauses are phony, and the lawyer said

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>that he wasn't saying that the clauses are phony. He's

0:05:50.640 --> 0:05:53.599
<v Speaker 1>referring to the litigation the cases, which I think he's

0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>probably a plausible reading of. The president sweets franctly they're irrelevant.

0:05:57.080 --> 0:05:58.839
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it really managed the courts where the

0:05:58.839 --> 0:06:01.320
<v Speaker 1>president thinks these clauses a phony or not. The issue

0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:04.040
<v Speaker 1>is fairly narrow that the courts are here to decide.

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:06.240
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of these judges are more interested

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:08.080
<v Speaker 1>in getting sound bites and they are just in act

0:06:08.160 --> 0:06:12.080
<v Speaker 1>making legal arguments. Did it seem as if one side

0:06:12.279 --> 0:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>was going to win the argument? Did it seem fairly divided?

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.800
<v Speaker 1>Or you just can't tell. Oh, I think Trump's going

0:06:17.839 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 1>to lose. This is a court where I think the

0:06:20.240 --> 0:06:23.240
<v Speaker 1>majority of the judges are willing to say that the

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 1>president's appeal was not proper. Now, let's just be very

0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:28.560
<v Speaker 1>careful here. I don't think the court here will hold

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.799
<v Speaker 1>that the president is violing the Constitution. I think they'll

0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:35.440
<v Speaker 1>he'll hold more narrowly that unless the district judge, the

0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:38.520
<v Speaker 1>trial judge allows the appeal to proceed, than the appellate

0:06:38.600 --> 0:06:40.919
<v Speaker 1>court has no authority to act that you need to

0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:43.120
<v Speaker 1>wait through the district courts act first, and I think

0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:45.880
<v Speaker 1>that's that's where they're gonna wind up. Can you explain

0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:51.240
<v Speaker 1>why the district court decided that there was no appeal possible? Well,

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>generally you can take an appeal after a judge makes

0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:56.920
<v Speaker 1>a final ruling. For example, we dismiss a case, you

0:06:56.960 --> 0:07:00.200
<v Speaker 1>can appeal that. Here the judge is something separately, he

0:07:00.360 --> 0:07:03.200
<v Speaker 1>declined to dismiss the case that I want the case

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:07.600
<v Speaker 1>to go forward. And generally you can't appeal a denial

0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 1>of a dismissive this you can't appeal it where you

0:07:10.080 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 1>don't have a final decision. And the government said, come on,

0:07:13.520 --> 0:07:15.280
<v Speaker 1>this is the president of the United States. Can't you

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:17.920
<v Speaker 1>let us take an early appeal? And the judge said, no,

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:20.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think this case warrants it. You know, I

0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 1>think my opinions reasonable people aren't going to disagree with me.

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Let's proceed. I think that was almost certainly an error.

0:07:27.480 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>But what happens when this judge makes a mistake. Can

0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:31.680
<v Speaker 1>you tell a court they say no, no, no, you're wrong,

0:07:32.280 --> 0:07:34.320
<v Speaker 1>And there's some good authority to say that. Know that

0:07:34.360 --> 0:07:37.000
<v Speaker 1>when you have this sort of transigent district court judge,

0:07:37.400 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 1>you're sort of stuck with it now. I'll just put

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:42.800
<v Speaker 1>disclosure that I filed amicus briefs. It's for the president

0:07:43.000 --> 0:07:45.640
<v Speaker 1>in all these cases are when in Maryland, when in

0:07:45.680 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>New York, and when in d C. So I do

0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 1>have a bit of a dog in the fight. I

0:07:49.400 --> 0:07:52.240
<v Speaker 1>think the disrec court judge here behaved improperly. What was

0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 1>the three judge panels ruling? Then? The three judge panel

0:07:56.360 --> 0:08:00.800
<v Speaker 1>remarkably actually not only took the case away sly disrecord,

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:03.360
<v Speaker 1>they dismissed it outright. They didn't attend it back to

0:08:03.480 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 1>the further consideration. They said, too bad, you screwed up.

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:09.440
<v Speaker 1>This case is over, which I think was probably not

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.400
<v Speaker 1>the strongest holding. This case is a lot of bizarre angles.

0:08:12.720 --> 0:08:16.680
<v Speaker 1>Tell me why you filed amicus briefs in all these cases.

0:08:16.920 --> 0:08:19.120
<v Speaker 1>I follow them because I'm a glutton for punishments. No,

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:24.040
<v Speaker 1>our position is a little bit obscure. I represent Professor

0:08:24.080 --> 0:08:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Stepan Barrett Kilman, who is a constitution law professor in Ireland,

0:08:28.120 --> 0:08:31.840
<v Speaker 1>and for many years Professor Tilman has studied the Constitution

0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:37.200
<v Speaker 1>text very carefully, and our theory, and this theory predates Trump,

0:08:37.600 --> 0:08:40.080
<v Speaker 1>but Our theory is that the Constitution uses the phrase

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 1>office and officer to refer to appointed positions on elected positions.

0:08:44.559 --> 0:08:46.959
<v Speaker 1>And they said, Josh, who cares. Well, if we look

0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:49.319
<v Speaker 1>at the text of the foreign Emolument's clause, it applies

0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to those whold office under the United States. We think

0:08:52.520 --> 0:08:55.400
<v Speaker 1>this language for as people who are appointed by the government,

0:08:55.800 --> 0:08:57.719
<v Speaker 1>that is, you know, the Secretary of State or a

0:08:57.840 --> 0:09:00.559
<v Speaker 1>judge of the federal courts. Right, we don't think that

0:09:00.679 --> 0:09:04.000
<v Speaker 1>this language applies to elected positions. If we're right, then

0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:07.280
<v Speaker 1>the foreign of Mooluments clause simply doesn't limit the president's actions.

0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:10.040
<v Speaker 1>I can see this is some of an orthox position

0:09:10.080 --> 0:09:12.520
<v Speaker 1>as so far the courts haven't accepted it. Indeed, the

0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:15.360
<v Speaker 1>judges have mostly rejected our position. But we still think

0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 1>we have a argument to make, and we keep making

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:19.959
<v Speaker 1>it in any court don't listen to us. So, a

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 1>second emoluments case filed by two D fifteen Democratic members

0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:27.599
<v Speaker 1>of Congress is before the Federal Appeals Court in d C.

0:09:28.200 --> 0:09:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Any idea how that court might rule, Well, the DC

0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:33.840
<v Speaker 1>Circuit case June is really different. Let me explain to

0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:37.040
<v Speaker 1>you why here you had two members of Congress, Sue

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.239
<v Speaker 1>and they argue that the pressment was violent in the Constitution.

0:09:41.160 --> 0:09:43.800
<v Speaker 1>This wasn't the House or presentative suiting or the Senate.

0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 1>These were individual members. And there's a I think a

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:51.160
<v Speaker 1>pretty good argument that individual members of Congress can't go

0:09:51.240 --> 0:09:54.200
<v Speaker 1>to court to sue, right, that's not what they're there for.

0:09:54.320 --> 0:09:57.240
<v Speaker 1>They can sue perhaps as a body, maybe the whole Congress,

0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.800
<v Speaker 1>they can't to individually. So I think the DC case

0:09:59.880 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>we thrown out because the members of Congress won't have

0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:04.640
<v Speaker 1>what's called standing. What about the third case at the

0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit? In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

0:10:07.920 --> 0:10:10.920
<v Speaker 1>in Manhattan ruled that a restaurant group had standing to

0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:13.920
<v Speaker 1>sue Trump. The Second Circuits in a different position. The

0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:16.960
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit case was brought by business owners in New

0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:19.840
<v Speaker 1>York who in hotels and restaurants, and they claimed that

0:10:19.880 --> 0:10:24.199
<v Speaker 1>they were competing against Trump Tower Hotel in Midtown. The

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:28.360
<v Speaker 1>disrecord in that case actually dismissed the case outright, but

0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:31.160
<v Speaker 1>then the Second Circuit Court Appeals, a three judge panel,

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:34.440
<v Speaker 1>reversed and held that the case was proper. The government

0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:37.559
<v Speaker 1>filed a petition for re hearing on bank, that is,

0:10:37.600 --> 0:10:41.000
<v Speaker 1>re hearing before the entire court. That motion is impending

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:43.480
<v Speaker 1>now for a couple of months, and we've not heard anything.

0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:46.319
<v Speaker 1>So we're a spot where the Second Circuit hasn't signaled

0:10:46.360 --> 0:10:48.520
<v Speaker 1>one or the other one. They're going to do the

0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:51.160
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit historcually, here is very few cases on blanc,

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:54.920
<v Speaker 1>so if the President loses that case, it's very lifely

0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:57.720
<v Speaker 1>goes to the Supreme Court. I think actually the Maryland

0:10:57.760 --> 0:10:59.880
<v Speaker 1>case in the New York case are very lifely extreame

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Burton next year or so. Thanks Josh. That's Josh Blackman,

0:11:03.160 --> 0:11:06.320
<v Speaker 1>a professor of constitutional law at the South Texas College

0:11:06.320 --> 0:11:09.520
<v Speaker 1>of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:13.920
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:11:14.000 --> 0:11:17.880
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:11:18.360 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg