Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/367703276/CREW-v-TRUMP-SDNY-Decision-Dismissing-Emoluments-Lawsuit-12-21-2017
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:13:04+00:00

Document:
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(l).
constitute an emolument prohibited by either Clause.
Commission and the Department of Justice alleging violations of campaign finance laws. (Id.
restaurant employees, over 200 restaurants, and about 3,000 other dining establishments. (Id.
Organization LLC and The Trump Organization, Inc. (collectively, the "Trump Organization").
from the federal or state governments.
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
account quoted a "Middle Eastern diplomat" as saying, "[b ]elieve me, all the delegations will go"
property at the Trump World Tower, paying anywhere from $4.5 million up to $8.375 million.
2For purposes of this motion, Defendant has conceded that he is subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
filed, GSA has not made any effort to enforce the apparent breach against the Trump Organization.
competition resulting in "loss of commission-based income" and "loss of revenue[.]" (See id.
district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Morrison v. Nat 'l Aust!.
Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted), ajf'd, 561U.S.247 (2010).
of that jurisdiction. Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
666, 671 (2d Cir. 2013).
limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies." Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S.
demonstrating each element." Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (citation omitted).
"The Supreme Court has found cognizable injuries to economic competitors." In re US.
Catholic Conference, 885 F.2d 1020, 1029 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted); see Clarke v. Sec.
service offerings and began competing with firms that had traditionally provided those services.
ruling to permit banks to offer travel services).
action of the defendant," and for which "prospective relief will remove the harm." Simon v. E. Ky.
Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 45 (1976); see also Liberty Glob. Logistics LLC v. US.
rule caused them injury because it "encouraged" hospitals to deny other services to indigents.
institutions, thereby exacerbating plaintiffs' injury. Id. at 45-46.
merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Bennett, 520 U.S.
and domestic governments was a violation of the Emoluments Clauses, it is entirely "speculative,"
from foreign governments in competition with Plaintiffs.
officials may still patronize Defendant's restaurants and hotels.
in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Emoluments Clause violations that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision.
to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations.
any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act." Id.
The Hospitality Plaintiffs therefore lack Article III standing.
organization would have had standing to bring the suit individually. N. Y Civil Liberties Union v.
and immunities the association itself may enjoy." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975).
638, 649 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Spann v. Colonial Vill., Inc., 899 F.2d 24, 27 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).
at 295 (the organization's ability to represent its clients in administrative hearings was "impeded"
specific functions within its purview.
remedy and counter the adverse consequences flowing from the defendant's conduct or policy.
limit some harm to a "legally protected interest." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
expenditure of organizational resources. 5 See New York v. US. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 896 F.
to no more than an "abstract concern with a subject that could be affected by an adjudication."
increased competition is not an interest that those Clauses were designed to protect. See Part III.A.2.
of CREW's need to remedy any particular adverse consequence or harmful effect of Defendant's conduct.
(S.D.N.Y. 2006); Small v. Gen. Nutrition Cos., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 83, 95 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
automatically suspended upon arrest for certain enumerated criminal charges. 644 F.3d at 149.
members." 644 F.3d at 157-58.
no real limitation.") (Ginsburg, J.).
standing to sue under Article III.
Defendant seems to argue, without explicitly stating so, that the "political question"
Plaintiffs' Foreign Emoluments Clause claims do implicate political question concerns.
various departments on one question." 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).
Each of these factors may serve as an independent ground for dismissal. See Vieth v.
Plaintiffs' Foreign Emoluments Clause claims are indeed not ripe for judicial review.
adjudicating cases. See Abbot Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148--49 (1976). In Goldwater v.
that such action, without ratification from the Senate, infringed upon Congress's treaty power. Id.
constitutional authority in terminating the treaty. Id. at 709.
each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority." Goldwater, 444 U.S. at 996.
President's actions. 7 Id. at 998.
concurring); Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141, 1149-51(D.D.C.1990); Lowry v. Reagan, 676 F. Supp.
a body in response to Defendant's alleged Foreign Emoluments Clause violations, if it chooses to do so.
Emoluments Clause claims are not ripe for adjudication.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.