---
Although this site is https-secure, we cannot guarantee that it or any
provided links are safe; be sure your antivirus and other security systems are
up to date.
Also see: Emoluments; Finance; lawsuits;
legal; Leandra English;
May 11: [Regarding the number
of lawsuits filed against Trump and his administration] This is not normal, and
the way the courts are responding is the way I think we want the courts to
respond, which is adhering to the rule of law,” said Deepak Gupta, counsel for
the plaintiffs in the emoluments suit.
“What’s unusual is the amount of legal problems being generated
by the administration.”
July 2: The Trump University case isn’t
over. An attorney on the case explains what’s next. ... “People have failed to
see this coming.”
Most people probably think the Trump University lawsuit — in which students at
the supposed “school” accused our now-president of fraud — is over. Donald Trump
settled for $25 million in November, shortly after he was elected. ... One
plaintiff, Sherri Simpson, wants to take Trump to trial, as she explained
in a column for Vox recently.
“I understand why some folks simply want to settle, take a little money, and
forget this ever happened,” Simpson wrote. “Scams like Trump U victimize the
vulnerable, and they need to be stopped. ... This shouldn’t be swept under the
rug with a settlement that doesn’t even require him to pay back what he took or
admit guilt.”
October 18: Don’t Put Trump Above the Law,
Emoluments Challengers Urge
For the first time in U.S. history, ordinary citizens fought in court Wednesday
to have a president’s business dealings declared as violations of
anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution.
November 28: ...
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington hired [Deepak Gupta]
to sue Trump after alleging the president is violating the Constitution’s
obscure Foreign Emoluments Clause by accepting money from foreign governments
through his businesses.
November 29: A federal judge on Tuesday
refused to block President Trump’s pick to be the temporary leader of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, denying a request by a high-ranking agency
employee that she be put in charge instead.
In turning down Leandra English’s request for a temporary restraining order,
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly acknowledged that the case raised
constitutional questions, but he ruled that White House budget director Mick
Mulvaney can remain acting CFPB director.
December 22: Trump's Wells Fargo tweet cited
in court hearing as reason to remove Mulvaney as CFPB acting chief
A recent tweet by President Trump about possible penalties against Wells Fargo &
Co. was cited during a court hearing Friday as a reason for removing White House
official Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
January 16: English Makes Next Move; Appeals
CFPB Leadership Decision to D.C. Circuit
Last week in the case of Leandra English v. Donald J. Trump et al. Judge
Timothy Kelly denied a second request to remove President Trump's pick to lead
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) until a permanent replacement
can be nominated and confirmed. On Friday, English made her next move by filing
an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She also
requested that the decision be expedited.
https://www.insidearm.com/news/00043614-english-makes-next-move-appeals-cfpb-lead/
April 12: The fight over who should lead the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) hit the nation’s second most
powerful court on Thursday.
“What is there in Dodd-Frank that expressively displaces the president’s
authority under the Vacancy Act,” Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush
appointee, asked English’s attorney Deepak Gupta.
Gupta argued his client became the acting director the moment the resignation of
Richard Cordray, the bureau’s first director, became effective
on Nov. 24, 2017, because Dodd-Frank mandates the deputy director “shall serve
as the acting director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.”
April 30: Democrats Tell Judge ‘Emoluments
Clause’ Applies to Trump
A group of almost 200 Democrats who’ve sued President Donald Trump told a judge
he must comply with a Constitutional provision that would bar his businesses
from taking money from foreign governments.
"There is no serious question that the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which applies
to any person holding an ‘Office of Profit or Trust under the United States,’
applies to the president,” they wrote. No president “has ever claimed
otherwise."
May 2: Trump claims immunity, asks court to
toss foreign payments suit
President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing
him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to
separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute
immunity.”
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia,
accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars
U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments
without congressional approval. The same clause also bars the president from
receiving gifts and payments from individual states.
Undated CREW Summary:
District court proceedings Trump filed a
motion to dismiss on June 9, 2017.[20]
on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no right to sue[21]
and that the described conduct was not illegal.[22]
A response to the motion to dismiss was filed on August 4, 2017, with a DOJ
reply due by September 22, 2017.[23]
A full answer from DOJ lawyers to the facts alleged in the complaint was due on
August 11, 2017.[24]
Oral arguments were expected October 18, 2017.[25]
