On Friday, Department of Justice lawyers filed a motion to “halt” the lawsuit against Trump for continuing to do business with foreign and state governments while serving as president. The lawsuit was brought by the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland.
The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge to halt proceedings in a lawsuit involving President Trump’s private business, arguing that allowing the case to go forward would “be a distraction to the President’s performance of his constitutional duties.”
[…] In Friday’s filing, the Justice Department sought to block the case on the grounds that Messitte was setting new precedent on complex issues involving a sitting president and asked that he put the case on hold until a higher court could review his rulings.
“Plaintiffs are now poised to attempt to conduct civil discovery against the sitting President, in his official capacity, which necessarily would be a distraction,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in the 36-page filing.
This is so blatant an attempt to cover Trump’s ass that I half expected the DoJ to argue that executive time and golf are among the constitutional duties that would be distracted from — horrors!
The motion offers the following excuses for why the suit should be halted (note: IANAL, so my interpretations may be wrong; please feel free to correct me in comments):
The Court’s March 28 and July 25 Orders Involve Controlling Questions of Law and Their Immediate Resolution May Materially Advance the Ultimate Termination of This Litigation
The article notes “In the meantime, the judge must also decide whether to allow other parts of the case to proceed… The attorneys general argue that the process of seeking documents and conducting interviews to obtain information related to the D.C. hotel ought to proceed.” I guess that means they can’t proceed with discovery yet, though I can’t discern the reason.
There Is Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion as to the Four Controlling Questions of Law Identified in This Motion
There is a substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the term “Emolument” in the Emoluments Clauses.
There is a substantial ground for difference of opinion as to whether Plaintiffs’ economic interests are addressed by the Emoluments Clauses.
A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Article III standing.
A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to the availability of the requested equitable relief against the President in his official capacity.
You may recall that the Trump Organization and the DoJ had previously sought to get the suit dismissed, but U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte
ruled that the case could proceed. The grounds for dismissal, including whether the plaintiffs have standing and the definition of emoluments, seem to be repeated in the current motion.
The Trump Organization and the Justice Department had urged Messitte to dismiss the case, arguing that the Founding Fathers had written this clause to stop officials from taking bribes — but not to stop them from doing business.
If you’re wondering why the DoJ would so doggedly try to prevent the suit from being heard, remember that the DoJ lawyers might be political appointees rather than career employees based on an earlier executive order (ALJs = Administrative Law Judges; emphasis added):
On June 21, the Supreme Court decided SEC v. Lucia, a case surrounding the process by which administrative law judges land their lifetime jobs and the nature of the role they perform. Traditionally, ALJs have been treated as employees and selected through a rigorous, lengthy competitive application process. In Lucia, the court ruled that ALJs should be considered “inferior officers” rather than employees, which means they must be appointed rather than selected.
Lucia rested on two findings: SEC ALJs receive a career appointment to a position created by statute, and ALJs get to exercise significant discretion in carrying out important functions, i.e., conduct trials, rule on evidence admissibility, and enforce compliance. That’s true of many ALJs across agencies who perform critical agency-specific roles like determining if there’s been a Fair Housing Act violation or whether to grant an immigrant asylum. Their rulings are often final.
[…]
Barely three weeks later, Donald Trump has solved the hiring slowdown by issuing a sweeping executive order citing Lucia and declaring that all ALJs will now be political appointees rather than selected. To call it a boon for the Trump administration, and the GOP, would be a radical understatement. They’ve just been handed the opportunity to appoint ALJs based on their own, totally political criteria, rigging the immigration law system.
Read this carefully: politically-appointed lawyers representing the Department of Justice of the United States of America are trying to block litigation brought by states’ attorneys general on behalf of someone who has blatantly abused his office to enrich himself and his family. They may yet succeed. Are we an autocracy yet…?