Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/378704459/DC-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Amicus-brief-of-Seth-Barrett-Tillman-in-Support-of-Neither-Party-with-Respect-to-Individual-Capacity-Motion-to-Dismiss
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:22:41+00:00

Document:
Robert W. Ray, Esq. Josh Blackman, Esq.
Carrie Severino, Esq. Jan I. Berlage, Esq.
Complaint with prejudice, as it relates to him in his individual capacity.” [Dkt. No. 112].
the Motion to Dismiss that was filed on behalf of defendant in his individual capacity [ECF No.
contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this Brief.
rule of law, and supported by a fair and impartial judiciary.
an industry or other group.
Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. C.I.R., 293 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J.) (citations omitted).
Tillman and JEP can serve these roles.
democracy, how judges interpret the Constitution, and the impact of court rulings on the nation.
ous cases before the federal courts of appeals and the Supreme Court.
land-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 303 F.R.D. 266, 269 (D. Md. 2014). See Altizer v.
reau of Greater Maryland, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 720, 728 (D. Md. 1996) (citations omitted).
of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision”).
amicus curiae to participate in oral arguments).
this case, in whole or in part.
to file the attached amicus brief in support of the defendant in his individual capacity.
be served on all counsel of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Defendant that the claims against the President in his individual capacity should be dismissed.
together. As a result, this brief is styled as an amicus brief in support of neither party.
capacity claims. Ensuring that claims are properly pleaded is crucial in three important respects.
Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant in his Individual Capacity at 1, Dkt. No. 112-1.
v. Arthur, 626 F.3d 194, 201–02 (4th Cir. 2010).
flate—turn on how a claim is pleaded.
dismissed due to the absence of any statutory or implied constitutional cause of action.
As a general matter, the Constitution only limits official action taken by office-holders.
government officials in their official or individual capacities.
pending on the facts, plaintiffs could sue those officials in their official or individual capacities.
nor to the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.
Tr. of Jan. 25, 2018 Hearing at 28:16–18.
LLCs and corporations which he owns (and/or controls) in whole or in part.”).
to do with the Defendant’s ‘performance of his duties as president’ was mistaken.”); Statement of Interest at 5, Dkt.
is part of his official duties, and any alleged noncompliance necessarily would be in the President’s official capacity.”).
Statement of Interest, supra note 6, at 5.
Motion to Dismiss, supra note 1, at 14.
filed against the officer in his official capacity.
to the Balanced Budget Amendment, 12 CONST. COMM. 217, 220 (1995).
See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).
tion of federal law.’” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)).
disturb the sovereign’s property” (emphasis added)).
officer, and not against the government itself.
violation could be challenged through an official-capacity lawsuit.
U.S. Const. amend. XXI (emphasis added).
both provisions could be litigated through official and/or individual-capacity claims.
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum at 36 n.14, Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C.
April 30, 2018) (Sullivan, J.), Dkt. No. 50, 2018 WL 2042238, http://bit.ly/2juoce4 (emphases added).
tional tort: i.e., the act of accepting the emoluments.
would not control the account in which the funds were deposited.
ments Clauses. Tillman and JEP Brief, Dkt. No. 27-1, at 24–30.
is a non-justiciable political question.
note 15, at 36 n.14.
Statement of Interest, supra note 6, at 4.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 5 (emphasis added).
which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been [i]ncreased during such time.”)).
Rodearmel v. Clinton, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 126 (D.D.C. 2009).
Emoluments Clause in his official capacity.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7.
ments Clauses. Tillman and JEP Brief, supra note 17, at 24–30.
For this reason, Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning profits derived from the Trump International Hotel, see Am.
officials, not tied to government policy and property, are, at most, individual-capacity suits.
who would sell out its interests to advance his own.”).
Motion to Dismiss, supra note 1, at 21.
purported wrongs under that clause to official-capacity claims.
cials sued personally, however, may assert common-law immunity defenses.” (emphasis added)).
Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25 (quotation marks omitted).
be forced to pay damages. Id.
junctive relief against an officer in his individual capacity.
Hafer, 502 U.S. at 27 (quoting Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)).
Statement of Interest, supra note 6, at 6–7 (quoting Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1291 (2017)).
Statement of Interest, supra note 6, at 7.
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 697–98 (1997).
Id. at 699 (quoting United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,692d) (Marshall, C.J.)).
See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982).
an official-capacity and an individual-capacity claim. Nixon, 457 U.S. at 756.
ments yet-to-be made or yet-to-be received by Trump and Trump-related commercial entities.
https://perma.cc/B8BU-X4U3 (describing creation and organization of President-Elect Trump’s “Trust”).
has not created a private cause of action under either the Foreign or Domestic Emoluments Clauses.
See supra note 28 (discussing Trump International Hotel).
See supra note 44 and accompanying text (discussing divestment, disgorgement, and constructive trust).
Motion to Dismiss, supra note 1, at 20.
claim should be dismissed with prejudice.
Tillman, The Emoluments Clauses Litigation, Part 8, The Volokh Conspiracy (Feb. 8, 2018), perma.cc/YUV6-Y5AV.
authority of courts to extend or create private causes of action even in the realm of domestic law . . . .”).
the responsibility and institutional capacity to weigh foreign-policy concerns . . . .”).
3D-Printed Guns: State of Washington et al. v. US Department of State, Defense Distributed et al.

References: v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.