Even though it’s likely to be appealed, this certainly qualifies as a win for the home team. From WaPo:
In his ruling, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan wrote that the members of Congress “appropriately seek relief in federal court” because they have no way to address their concern about Trump’s alleged violation of the emoluments clause with legislation.
“The Clause requires the President to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited foreign emolument,” Sullivan wrote. If the allegations made by Democrats are true, he said, then “the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress.”
By not asking Congress, Sullivan said, Trump could have effectively “nullified their votes” — which, he said, meant legislators could seek the unusual remedy of filing a lawsuit against the president.
In a similar suit filed by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia, Trump’s DOJ lawyers contend that he’s not doing anything illegal when foreign government officials stay at one of his properties “because he is not trading favors in exchange for a benefit.”
In that case, U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte had this exchange with DOJ lawyer Brett Shumate’s view that the emoluments clause demands a provable “quid pro quo” in exchange for an official action:
“Wouldn’t that be bribery?” Messitte countered. “Another clause in the Constitution makes bribery a basis for impeachment. Are you saying that Congress could consent to bribery?”
Shumate stood his ground, saying “ultimately it’s a question for Congress to decide, whether to consent or not,” adding that there needs to be corrupt intent for bribery.
But the judge pressed on, questioning whether “as long as the president takes the money without a corrupt intent, then it’s OK?”
(Emphasis mine).
Messitte issued a 53-page decision allowing the case to proceed. It states:
For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have convincingly argued that the term “emolument” in both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, with slight refinements that the Court will address, means any “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage” and that accordingly they have stated claims to the effect that the President, in certain instances, has violated both the Foreign and Domestic Clauses.
So that’s two cases moving forward. A third in NY filed by CREW is currently on appeal in the SDNY.