Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge.
When Members of Congress sue the President in federal court over official action,
Plaintiffs, approximately 201 minority Members of the 535 Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, allege that Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States ("the President") is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause ("Clause"). Under this Clause, certain federal officials, including the President, may not "accept" an "emolument" from "any King, Prince or foreign State" without "the Consent of Congress." U.S Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. In Count I, plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in the form of a declaratory judgment stating that the President is violating the Clause when he accepts emoluments from foreign states without first seeking the consent of Congress. Am. Compl., ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 85-86. In Count II, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to grant equitable relief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1331 in the form of a Court order enjoining the President from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from a foreign state without obtaining "the Consent of Congress." Id. ¶ 92.
Pending before the Court is the President's motion to dismiss. The President argues that this case should be dismissed on four independent grounds,
As is explained more fully below, the central question for standing purposes is how to characterize the injury that occurs when the President fails to seek the consent of Congress, as required by the Clause. Plaintiffs argue that each Member of Congress suffers a particularized and concrete injury when his or her vote is nullified by the President's denial of the opportunity to vote on the record about whether to approve his acceptance of a prohibited foreign emolument. The President argues that this is an intra-branch
Upon careful consideration of the President's motion to dismiss, the opposition and reply thereto, the relevant arguments of amici,
Relevant to whether they have standing to bring their claims, plaintiffs allege that the President "has a financial interest in vast business holdings around the world that engage in dealings with foreign governments and receive benefits from those governments." Am. Compl., ECF No. 14 ¶ 2. Plaintiffs also allege that the President owns "`more than 500 separate entities-hotels, golf courses, media properties, books, management companies, residential and commercial buildings ... airplanes and a profusion of shell companies set up to capitalize on licensing deals.'" Id. ¶ 34 (citation omitted).
As a result of his financial interests, plaintiffs allege the President has accepted, and will accept in the future, emoluments from foreign states. Id. Indeed, the President has acknowledged "that his businesses receive funds and make a profit from payments by foreign governments, and that they will continue to do so while he is President." Id. ¶ 37. Public reporting has also confirmed this to be the case. Id. The President, through his personal attorney, has likewise asserted that the Constitution does not require "him to seek or obtain Congress' consent before accepting benefits arising out of exchanges between foreign states and his businesses." Id. ¶ 40. The President has therefore not provided any information to Congress about any foreign emoluments he has received. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiffs allege that because the President has denied them the opportunity to give or withhold their consent, he has injured them in their roles as Members of Congress, id. ¶ 5, and that they cannot force the President to comply with the Constitution absent a judicial order, id. ¶ 83.
A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is properly considered a challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction and should be reviewed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987)("[T]he defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction."). The Court must therefore consider the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) before reaching a merits challenge pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007). To survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 820 F.Supp.2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). "Because Rule 12(b)(1) concerns a court's ability to hear a particular claim,
"Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to `Cases' and `Controversies.'" Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). "`One element of the case-or-controversy requirement' is that plaintiffs `must establish that they have standing to sue.'" Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997)). The standing requirement "serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches." Id. The standing inquiry "often turns on the nature and source of the claim asserted" and the specific facts alleged. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). "[T]he law of Art. III standing is built on a single basic idea-the idea of separation of powers." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).
To establish standing, "a plaintiff must show (1) an `injury in fact,' (2) a sufficient `causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,' and (3) a `likel[ihood]' that the injury `will be redressed by a favorable decision.'" Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S.Ct. at 2341 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992)); see also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 700, 705, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) ("To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a personal and individual way."). These requirements help to "assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action." Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). "The [effect of the] exercise of judicial power [is] most vivid when a federal court declares unconstitutional an act of the Legislative or Executive Branch." Id. at 473, 102 S.Ct. 752. Therefore, to ensure the "continued effectiveness of the federal courts in performing that role ... it has been recognized as a tool of last resort." Id. at 473-74, 102 S.Ct. 752.
"The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citations omitted). "Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id.
When considering whether a legislator has standing, the Court "must carefully inquire as to whether [plaintiffs] have met their burden of establishing that
The Foreign Emoluments Clause provides:
U.S Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. "[T]he language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified." 17 Op. O.L.C. 114, 121 (1993). The acceptance of an emolument barred by the Clause is prohibited unless Congress chooses to permit an exception. Id.; see also Letter from James Madison to David Humphreys (Jan. 5, 1803), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/02-04-02-0275# ("the Constitution of the United States has left with Congress the exclusive authority to permit the acceptance of presents from foreign Governments by persons holding Offices under the United States"). And the President may not accept any emolument until Congress votes to give its consent.
The Clause was intended by the Framers to guard against "corruption and foreign influence." 3 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 327 (1966). Historically, Presidents have complied with the Clause by either seeking and obtaining congressional consent prior to accepting foreign presents or emoluments, or by requesting an opinion from the Executive or Legislative Branch's advisory office as to whether the Clause applies.
Modern Presidents, except for President Trump, have sought advice from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") prior to accepting potentially
Since the Clause prohibits the President from accepting a prohibited foreign emolument unless Congress votes to consent, the Constitution gives each individual Member of Congress a right to vote before the President accepts. Under the Constitution, Congress expresses its consent through the combined votes of its individual members. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. Congress "consist[s] of a Senate and House of Representatives." Id. art. I, § 1. The "Consent of Congress" is obtained when a majority of the individual members of each House vote to consent. Id. art. I, § 3, cl. 1 ("each Senator shall have one Vote"); id. art. I, § 5, cl. 3 (requiring, at the request of one-fifth of those present, that "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question" to be recorded). That Congress acts as "the body as a whole"
The President argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish a judicially cognizable injury as is required by Article III. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 15 at 21-28; Def.'s Reply ("Reply"), ECF No. 28 at 10-19. The President also disputes that the alleged injury is fairly traceable to him. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 24; Reply, ECF No. 28 at 8.
Plaintiffs contend that they have standing: (1) the injury-in-fact they have suffered is that the President has denied them a voting opportunity to which the Constitution entitles them; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the President's conduct because he has neither asked for their consent nor provided them with any information about the prohibited foreign emoluments he has already allegedly accepted; and (3) the injury can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision if the Court requires the President to obtain congressional consent before accepting prohibited foreign emoluments. Pls.' Opp'n, ECF No. 17 at 13.
As discussed below, the President's arguments rely on a repeated misstatement of the injury alleged and on proffers of plainly inadequate legislative remedies. The Court is persuaded that plaintiffs have sustained their burden to show that they have standing to bring their claims: (1) they have adequately alleged a judicially cognizable injury that is fairly traceable to the President and can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision; and (2) although plaintiffs' claims raise separation-of-powers concerns, plaintiffs have no adequate legislative remedy and this dispute
The parties rely heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Raines v. Byrd. See generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1; Pls.' Opp'n, ECF No. 17; Reply, ECF No. 28 (discussing Raines, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997)). The President argues that plaintiffs lack standing pursuant to Raines; plaintiffs respond that Raines does not foreclose their standing to bring their claims and indeed provides support for it. The Court will therefore discuss the case in detail.
In Raines, six members of Congress who had voted against the Line Item Veto Act ("Act") sued the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Raines, 521 U.S. at 814, 117 S.Ct. 2312. The Act authorized the President to "`cancel' certain spending and tax benefit measures after he ha[d] signed them into law." Id. The plaintiffs claimed that the Act injured them in their official capacities by: (1) "`alter[ing] the legal and practical effect of all votes they may cast on bills'" subject to the Act; (2) "`divest[ing] [them] of their constitutional role in the repeal of legislation'"; and (3) "`alter[ing] the constitutional balance of powers between the Legislative and Executive Branches ...'" Id. at 816, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Compl.).
At issue was whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims. The Court began its inquiry by focusing on the requirement in standing analysis that the injury be a personal one: "We have consistently stressed that a plaintiff's complaint must establish that he has a `personal stake' in the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him." Id. at 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 and n.1, 112 S.Ct. 2130). Next, the Court noted "[w]e have also stressed that the alleged injury must be legally and judicially cognizable. This requires, among other things, that the plaintiff have suffered `an invasion of a legally protected interest which is ... concrete and particularized,' Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, and that the dispute is `traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.'" Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968)). Finally, the Court noted that the jurisdictional standing requirement must be strictly complied with: "our standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional." Id. at 819-20, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (citations omitted). "`[T]he law of Art. III standing is built on a single basic idea-the idea of separation of powers.'" Id. at 820, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315). In view of these observations, the Court concluded that it "must carefully inquire as to whether appellees have met their burden of establishing that their claimed injury is personal, particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable." Id.
The Court distinguished Powell v. McCormack, in which it held that a Congressman's "constitutional challenge to his exclusion from the House of Representatives (and his consequent loss of salary) presented an Article III case or controversy," id. at 820-21, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (citing Powell, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 512-14, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)), on two grounds. First, the Raines plaintiffs had not been singled out for unfavorable treatment from the other members of their
Id. (internal citation omitted). Thus, according to the Court, the Raines plaintiffs' injury was an institutional one and not sufficiently concrete and personal.
The Court then distinguished Coleman v. Miller, "[t]he one case in which we have upheld standing for legislators (albeit
The Court then distinguished the claims in Raines from those in Coleman:
Id. at 824, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (footnote omitted). Thus, according to the Court, the Raines plaintiffs could not allege that their votes had been nullified in the past; rather, they had lost the vote on the Act. See id. And the Raines plaintiffs could not allege that their votes would be nullified in the future because they had a variety of legislative remedies at their disposal. See id.
The Court then considered the lack of a historical practice of lawsuits being filed "on the basis of claimed injury to official authority or power" as a result of analogous confrontations between the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government. Id. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312; see also infra Section IV.3.b. The Court concluded that, under the Constitution, it is not the role of the Article III courts to have "`some amorphous general supervision of the operations of government....'" Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 192, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)).
The Court rejected the Raines plaintiffs' basis for standing, ultimately holding that "these individual members of Congress do not have a sufficient `personal stake' in this dispute and have not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article III standing." Id. at 830, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (no citation for internal quotation in original). In so holding, the Court noted that "appellees have alleged no injury to themselves as individuals (contra, Powell), the institutional injury they allege is wholly abstract and widely dispersed (contra, Coleman), and their attempt to litigate this dispute at this time and in this form is contrary to historical experience." Id. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312. The Court stated that it "attach[ed] some importance to the fact that appellees have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suit." Id. (footnote omitted). The Court also thought it important to note that "our conclusion [does not] deprive[] Members of Congress of an adequate remedy (since they may repeal the Act or exempt appropriations bills from its reach) nor forecloses the Act from constitutional challenge (by someone who suffers judicially cognizable injury as a result of the Act)." Id.
Relying on Coleman, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that legislators, albeit state legislators as an institutional plaintiff, have standing to sue based on a vote nullification claim. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the state legislature plaintiff challenged a ballot measure that would have denied it the authority to draw congressional districts. ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2659, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015). The legislature's alleged injury was that the ballot initiative deprived it of its legislative prerogative to initiate redistricting. Id. at 2663. Relying on Coleman, as clarified in Raines, the Court held that the plaintiff had standing because "their votes have been completely nullified." Id. at 2665 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312). As the Court explained, "[o]ur conclusion that the Arizona Legislature has standing fits [within Coleman]" because the ballot initiative "together with the Arizona Constitution's ban on efforts to undermine the purposes of an initiative" would "`completely nullif[y]' any vote by the Legislature, now or `in the future,' purporting to adopt a redistricting plan." Id. at 2667 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 823-24, 117 S.Ct. 2312). The Court distinguished
In sum, Raines teaches that when a suit is brought by an individual Member of Congress, the member can allege either a personal injury or an institutional injury. If the injury is personal, standing is present when the injury arises out of something to which the member is personally entitled, such as the salary associated with his or her seat. As to an institutional injury, the Court has recognized standing when a legislator's vote has been completely nullified. The Supreme Court has upheld legislator standing based on a vote nullification claim in two instances. In Coleman, a bloc of individual state "legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." Raines, 521 U.S. at 823, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (footnote omitted). In Arizona State Legislature, the legislature, as an institutional plaintiff authorizing the lawsuit, had standing to sue based on the alleged nullification of their votes "now" or "in the future" as a result of a ballot initiative. 135 S.Ct. at 2667. Although neither of these cases implicated federal separation-of-powers concerns, the Raines Court specifically declined to hold that Coleman would be inapplicable "to a similar suit brought by federal legislators." Raines, 521 U.S. at 824 n.8, 117 S.Ct. 2312.
Raines also teaches that it is not necessary for an institutional claim to be brought by or on behalf of the institution. Id. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ("We attach some importance to the fact that appellees have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suit."). Indeed, in Coleman, the claim was not brought on behalf of the state senate as an institutional plaintiff, but rather by a bloc of individual legislators who had voted not to ratify the constitutional amendment. 307 U.S. at 436, 59 S.Ct. 972. Finally, by not overruling Coleman, the Raines Court suggests that vote nullification is an institutional injury that is personal, although not in the sense that the injury in Powell was personal, to the legislators entitled to cast the vote that has been nullified.
Regarding the separation-of-powers concerns implicated by an inter-branch suit, Raines instructs the Court to consider whether there is a lack of a historical practice of lawsuits being filed "on the basis of claimed injury to official authority or power" as a result of analogous confrontations between the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government. Raines, 521 U.S. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Raines also instructs the Court to consider whether there is an adequate legislative remedy and whether another plaintiff could bring the case. Id.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") has applied Raines twice, each time finding
In view of the Supreme Court's decision in Raines, the Court considered whether its earlier ruling in Kennedy v. Sampson survived. Id. at 116-17 (discussing Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). In Kennedy, the Court held, partially relying on the pre-Raines understanding of Coleman, that an individual Senator had standing to challenge a Presidential pocket veto. Kennedy, 511 F.2d at 433-35. Noting that Raines narrowed the Coleman holding, the Court stated that Kennedy may nonetheless remain good law:
Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 116-17 (emphasis added). The Court distinguished the claims before it from Coleman on the ground that plaintiffs "do not allege that the necessary majorities in Congress voted to block the AHRI. Unlike the plaintiffs in Kennedy
In the second post-Raines case considered, Campbell v. Clinton, thirty-one Members of Congress sued President Clinton, alleging that he violated the War Powers Resolution and the War Powers Clause of the Constitution by directing the participation of U.S. forces in Yugoslavia. 203 F.3d 19, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). A month after President Clinton announced that participation, Congress voted on four resolutions related to the conflict: (1) a declaration of war was defeated 427 to 2; (2) an "authorization" of the air strikes was defeated 213 to 213; (3) a resolution that would have required the President to end U.S. participation in the operation was defeated; and (4) funding for involvement in the operation was approved. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs claimed that they fit within the "Coleman exception to the Raines rule" by filing suit after having "defeat[ed] the War Powers Resolution authorization by a tie vote." Id. at 22. The Court found neither of their claims to be analogous to the nullification that occurred in Coleman, which the Court understood "to mean treating a vote that did not pass as if it had, or vice versa." Id. at 22. In Coleman, "state officials endorsed a defeated ratification, treating it as approved, while the President here did not claim to be acting pursuant to the defeated declaration of war or a statutory authorization, but instead `pursuant to [his] constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive.'" Id. at 22 (discussing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 S.Ct. 1385 (1939) and quoting Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Airstrikes Against Serbian Targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 528 (Mar. 26, 1999)). The Court reasoned that plaintiffs' argument based on the War Powers Resolution, "although cast in terms of the nullification of a recent vote, essentially is that the President violated the ... War Powers Resolution" and their argument based on the War Powers Clause "is that the President has acted illegally-in excess of his authority-because he waged war in a constitutional sense without a congressional delegation." Id. Regarding the Raines Court's use of the word "nullification," the Court stated:
Id. at 22-23 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 824, 117 S.Ct. 2312) (footnote omitted). Applying Raines, the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing under "the Coleman exception" because they had "ample legislative power to have stopped prosecution of the `war'" despite having lost the vote on the War Powers Resolution authorization. Id. at 23 (no citation for internal quotation in original). Therefore, despite the tie vote, the Campbell plaintiffs
In sum, D.C. Circuit precedent teaches that individual Members of Congress do not have standing to sue the Executive Branch when their institutional injury is such that they can obtain their remedy in Congress. In Campbell, the Court understood vote nullification "to mean treating a vote that did not pass as if it had, or vice versa." Campbell, 203 F.3d at 22. In Chenoweth, the Court suggested that notwithstanding Raines, a single Member of Congress could have standing to sue based on a vote nullification claim when it was the President's action, rather than "a lack of legislative support," that nullified the Member's vote. Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 117. Such a situation is therefore a third instance of a type of vote nullification for which a legislator could have standing.
To establish that they have an injury-in-fact, plaintiffs must allege that their injury is "personal, particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially cognizable." Raines, 521 U.S. at 820, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Regarding the requirement that the injury be "legally and judicially cognizable," "the plaintiff [must allege to] have suffered `an invasion of a legally protected interest which is ... concrete and particularized' Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, and that the dispute is `traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.'" Id. at 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Flast, 392 U.S. at 97, 88 S.Ct. 1942).
In the context of legislator standing, the Supreme Court has recognized at least one type of institutional injury for which legislators may have standing to sue: complete vote nullification. Coleman, 307 U.S. at 438, 59 S.Ct. 972; Raines, 521 U.S. at 821-23, 117 S.Ct. 2312; Ariz. State Legislature, 135 S.Ct. at 2667; Cummings v. Murphy, No. 17-2308, 321 F.Supp.3d 92, 105, 2018 WL 3869132, *9 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2018) ("[c]omplete vote nullification is clearly a type of institutional injury sufficient to support legislator standing"). Since an institutional injury will "necessarily damage all Members of Congress and both Houses of Congress equally," Raines, 521 U.S. at 821, 117 S.Ct. 2312, it will not be a personal injury in the sense that the injury in Powell was personal. If institutional injuries were incapable of also being personal to individual members of the institution, however, the Court in Raines would have overruled Coleman. Id. at 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312 ("We have consistently stressed that
The Clause requires the President to ask Congress before accepting a prohibited foreign emolument. Accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true, which the Court must at this juncture, the President is accepting prohibited foreign emoluments without asking and without receiving a favorable reply from Congress. The "nature and source of the claim," Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, is an unusual
Although plaintiffs do not sue on behalf of Congress, but rather in their individual official capacities as Members of Congress, their ability to bring this suit is not foreclosed by Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedent. The Raines Court did not hold that it would be necessary for an institutional claim to be brought by or on behalf of the institution. Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Rather, the fact that the case had not been authorized by the institution was a relevant consideration, but not dispositive, in determining that the Raines plaintiffs lacked standing. Id. Moreover, the claim in Coleman was not brought on behalf of the state senate as an institutional plaintiff, but rather by a bloc
The President acknowledges that "when a legislative vote is deemed defeated by executive action," the legislator has standing to sue unless there is a legislative remedy. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 17. Although he disputes that plaintiffs' votes have been "defeated by executive action," his argument relies on a misstatement of the alleged injury. The President contends that plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege that he has prevented votes from being taken on the emoluments bills pending before Congress,
According to the President, a Court may conclude that plaintiffs have standing for a
The President insists that upholding standing here would require a "drastic extension of Coleman," which the Supreme Court in Raines rejected. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 25. The Court disagrees. Raines would have required a drastic extension of Coleman because the nature of the vote nullification in Coleman was different from the "abstract dilution of legislative power" alleged in Raines. Raines, 521 U.S. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312. And critically, the Raines plaintiffs had adequate legislative remedies at their disposal. Id. at 824, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Here, by contrast, the President's complete nullification of plaintiffs' votes is entirely different from the "abstract dilution of legislative power" alleged in Raines. Id. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312. And as will be explained in detail, plaintiffs have no adequate legislative remedies. See infra Section IV.C.4.
Plaintiffs allege that the President has accepted, and intends to continue accepting, prohibited foreign emoluments without seeking congressional consent, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to vote on whether to consent to his acceptance of emoluments before he accepts them. Am. Compl., ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiffs' injury is to a "legally protected interest" because the Clause prohibits the President from accepting "any" emolument from "any King, Prince, or foreign State" without the consent of Congress. U.S Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. Consent is obtained through the aggregate of the specific votes
The President argues that the injury alleged here is insufficiently concrete to give the plaintiffs a "personal stake in the dispute" because the injury "damages all Members of Congress and both Houses of Congress equally." Reply, ECF No. 28 at 10 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 821, 830, 117 S.Ct. 2312). Furthermore, according to the President, the alleged injury cannot support Article III standing because it is felt equally by all Members of Congress "solely because they are Members of Congress," as distinct from the personal injury alleged in Powell. Reply, ECF No. 28 at 11 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 821, 117 S.Ct. 2312). The Court disagrees. The Raines Court recognized two types of injuries that could support legislator standing: (1) a personal injury such as that typified in Powell; and (2) an institutional injury-vote nullification — such as that in Coleman. Raines, 521 U.S. at 829-30, 117 S.Ct. 2312. An institutional injury will "necessarily damage all Members of Congress and both Houses of Congress equally" and will be felt equally by Members of Congress "solely because they are Members of Congress." Id. at 821, 117 S.Ct. 2312. And as explained, supra at 56, by reaffirming Coleman in Raines and Arizona State Legislature, the Supreme Court necessarily held that the institutional injury alleged was sufficiently personal to each of the plaintiffs to satisfy the standing requirement under Article III.
The President argues that plaintiffs' claims are squarely foreclosed by Raines. The Court disagrees. As an initial matter, the President reads Raines to establish "a foundational principle that the denial of institutional legislative prerogative is not a judicially cognizable injury." Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 16. This broad principle, however, is not supported by Raines. Raines establishes that legislators may have standing based on the nullification of their votes, which is an institutional, as opposed to a personal, injury. Raines, 521 U.S. at 821-23, 117 S.Ct. 2312. To establish the broad principle asserted by the President, the Raines Court would have needed to overrule Coleman. Not only did the Raines Court not overrule Coleman, but the Court also relied on
The President argues that the injury alleged here amounts only to a "dilution of institutional legislative power." Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 22 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 820, 117 S.Ct. 2312). Moreover, according to the President, there is little difference between the claim in Raines and the claim here because the members in Raines argued that the challenged Act "deprived them of `their constitutional role in the repeal of legislation'" which "does not differ materially from Plaintiffs' claim that they have been denied their constitutional role in deciding whether to consent to the President's acceptance of allegedly prohibited foreign emoluments," Reply, ECF No. 28 at 10-11 (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 816, 117 S.Ct. 2312). In so arguing, the President insists that plaintiffs' claimed injury is indistinguishable from the claimed injury in Chenoweth. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 23-24. The Court disagrees. The injury alleged here is distinguishable from those alleged in Raines and Chenoweth. In Raines, plaintiffs sued after being on the losing side of the vote that enacted the Line Item Veto Act, alleging that their injury was the diminution of legislative power caused by the Act. Raines, 521 U.S. at 814, 117 S.Ct. 2312. In Chenoweth, plaintiffs sued after their bill seeking to end a program created by the President by Executive Order failed to be brought to a vote, alleging that their injury was that Members of Congress had been deprived of their right to vote on the Presidentially-created program. Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 112. In each case, plaintiffs either lost the vote in Congress or did not have the political influence to bring their bill to a vote, and then sought relief in the courts. Here, by contrast, plaintiffs' alleged injury is caused by the President's alleged acceptance of prohibited foreign emoluments before seeking and obtaining congressional consent, not by any action taken or not taken by their congressional colleagues. See Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 117 ("it was the President's veto — not a lack of legislative support — that prevented the bill from becoming a law"); infra Section IV.C.3.a. The President's repeated misstatement of the injury does not change the nature of plaintiffs' alleged injury. Finally, the President's alleged acceptance of a prohibited foreign emolument before obtaining congressional consent does not "dilute" plaintiffs' legislative power because they do not allege injury to their ability to legislate on the issue of emoluments.
The Court does agree with the President that, "when legislators possess `political tools with which to remedy their purported injury,' they may not seek the aid of the Judiciary." Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 26 (quoting Campbell, 203 F.3d at 23-24). But here, plaintiffs lack such tools.
In addition to Congress bringing the bills currently pending to a vote, see supra Section IV.C.2.b.i, the President suggests that the following types of legislation would provide plaintiffs with a legislative remedy: (1) voting on whether what plaintiffs allege "constitute[s] violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause by the President and whether Congress should provide its consent," Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 2; (2) "vot[ing] on a private
The President's purported legislative remedies are clearly inadequate within the meaning of Raines. Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (legislative remedy must be an "adequate" remedy). In Raines, Chenoweth, and Campbell, adequate legislative remedies were available to redress the plaintiffs' grievances. In Raines, "a majority of Senators and Congressmen c[ould] pass or reject appropriations bills; the Act has no effect on this process. Moreover, a majority of Senators and Congressmen c[ould] vote to repeal the Act, or to exempt a given appropriations bill (or a given provision in an appropriations bill) from the Act; again, the Act has no effect on this process." Id. at 824, 117 S.Ct. 2312. In Chenoweth, "[i]t [was] uncontested that the Congress could terminate the AHRI were a sufficient number in each House so inclined." Chenoweth, 181 F.3d at 116. And in Campbell, "Congress certainly could have passed a law forbidding the use of U.S. forces in the Yugoslav campaign." Campbell, 203 F.3d at 23.
Here, by contrast, legislation on the emoluments issue does not provide an adequate remedy. First, in asking this Court to accept the proposition that legislation on the emoluments issue would be an adequate remedy, the President asks this Court to ignore this constitutional Clause. The Court may not do so. See Marbury, 1 Cranch at 174 ("It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect...."). The Clause is unambiguous: acceptance is prohibited without "Consent." U.S Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. The Clause therefore places the burden on the President to convince a majority of Members of Congress to consent. The legislation suggested by the President flips this burden, placing the burden on Members of Congress to convince a majority of their colleagues to enact the suggested legislation. This is not what the Clause requires.
Second, the President does not explain why such legislation, assuming he signed it, would prevent him from accepting prohibited foreign emoluments. His failure to explain is especially problematic given that the Constitution itself has not prevented him from allegedly accepting them. Third,
Furthermore, and in contrast to the situation in Chenoweth and Campbell, Congress' appropriations power cannot be used to obtain a legislative remedy, such as refusing to appropriate funds for an Executive Branch program or for participation in a war, because there are no federal appropriations associated with the President's receipt of prohibited foreign emoluments. This is another aspect of the Clause that makes it unusual. The President suggests that among plaintiffs' legislative remedies is the use of Congress' appropriations power to retaliate against him for his alleged acceptance of prohibited foreign emoluments by "tak[ing] action on matters not directly related to emoluments." Reply, ECF No. 28 at 18. Courts have treated Congress' use of its appropriations power as a legislative remedy in situations in which failing to provide funding could actually resolve the dispute. See, e.g., Campbell, 203 F.3d at 23 ("Congress always retains appropriations authority and could have cut off funds for the American role in the conflict."). Here, however, Congress lacks a "broad range of legislative authority it can use to stop" the President from failing to seek consent before accepting prohibited foreign emoluments. Campbell, 203 F.3d at 24 (noting that where "Congress has a broad range of legislative authority it can use to stop a President's" action, Congress cannot mount a challenge to that action pursuant to Raines).
Finally, the availability of the extreme measure of impeachment, see Campbell, 203 F.3d at 23 (noting that "there always remains the possibility of impeachment should a President act in disregard of Congress' authority"), to enforce the President's compliance with the Clause is not an adequate remedy within the meaning of Raines. Cf. Nat'l Treasury Emp. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 615 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ("the Constitution should not be construed so as to paint this nation into a corner which leaves available only the use of the impeachment process to enforce the performance of a perfunctory duty by the President").
Raines also instructs the Court to consider whether "the dispute is `traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.'" Raines, 521 U.S. at 819, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Flast, 392 U.S. at 97, 88 S.Ct. 1942). The President argues that it is not because "every[
The Raines Court's examples of analogous confrontations between Congress and the Executive Branch are distinguishable from the situation here. In Raines, the Court discussed at length the fact that no President sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act. Raines, 521 U.S. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312. That Act, which required the consent of the Senate for the President to remove an official whose appointment to the Executive Branch required Senate confirmation, was passed in 1867 and repealed in 1887. Id. The Raines Court stated that if federal courts had become involved, "they would have been improperly and unnecessarily plunged into the bitter political battle being waged between the President and Congress" over the Act. Id. at 827, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Here, there is no "bitter political battle" between the President and Congress over the constitutionality of an Act passed, and ultimately repealed, by Congress that impinged on the President's appointments authority. Id.
Two of the other three examples cited by the Raines Court involved constitutional challenges to legislation that impermissibly altered the power of the Legislative or Executive Branch, but where the claim was not brought by one branch against the other. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983)(holding the one House congressional veto provision in Section 244(1)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to be unconstitutional); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 140, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (holding the provisions of the then-existing Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that "vest[ed] in the [Federal Election] Commission primary responsibility for conducting civil litigation in the courts of the United States for vindicating public rights, violate[d] Art. II, § 2, cl., 2, of the Constitution."). These cases are distinguishable because here, plaintiffs do not allege that their injury has been caused by a similar type of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Furthermore, there is no legislative remedy. In the final example, the Supreme Court held that a bill that was presented to the President less than ten days before a congressional session was adjourned did not become law when the President "neither signed the bill nor returned it to the Senate" in a challenge brought by certain Native American Tribes. Okanogan, Methow, San Poelis (or San Poil), Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes or Bands of the State of Washington v. United States, 279 U.S. 655, 673, 691-92, 49 S.Ct. 463, 73 S.Ct. 894 (1929). This case is distinguishable for the same reasons-at issue there was the legal status of a bill that had been passed by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President less than ten days before the adjournment of the congressional session. The decision to do so had been made by Congress and could be remedied by Congress.
Similarly, this is not a situation in which plaintiffs disagree with the manner in
This case does not raise the concern that the Court, in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, would be engaging in some kind of "amorphous general supervision of the operations of government." Id. at 826, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (quoting Richardson, 418 U.S. at 194, 94 S.Ct. 2940 (Powell, J., concurring)). Rather, this dispute raises concrete legal questions that are within the purview of the federal courts to adjudicate: (1) what is an emolument; (2) what does it mean to accept an emolument; and (3) whether the President has violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The President contends that "Congress is far better equipped than the courts to assess whether particular arrangements violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and if so, how best to address the violation." Reply, ECF No. 28 at 18. While Congress clearly has the power to legislate on the issue of emoluments, "it is `the duty of the judicial department' — in a separation-of-powers case as in any other — to say what the law is.'" N.L.R.B. v. Canning, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 2560, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014) (quoting Marburg, 1 Cranch at 177). Therefore, it is the role of the Judiciary to "say what the law is" regarding the meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the President's compliance with it. Cf. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ("We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court `to say what the law is' with respect to the claim of privilege asserted in this case.") (quoting Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177). The President does not dispute the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution, but rejects the proposition that judicial review is appropriate here because "Congress continues to possess effective tools that would serve as checks on the Executive." Def.'s Suppl. Br. in Support of his Mot. to Dismiss and in Response to the Brs. of Amici Curiae ("Def.'s Suppl. Br."), ECF No. 51 at 26-27. Nevertheless, as explained supra Section IV.C.3.a, there are no adequate legislative remedies here.
Furthermore, unlike in Raines, the dispute here is neither an "interbranch dispute about calibrating the legislative and executive powers [nor] is it an intrabranch dispute between segments of Congress itself," either of which would counsel against judicial involvement based on separation-of-powers principles. Raines, 521 U.S. at 833, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (Souter, J., concurring). Rather, this dispute is about the President's alleged refusal to seek consent prior to his alleged acceptance of prohibited foreign emoluments that he receives as a result of his personal financial interests. The President has strenuously attempted to frame the dispute as "an intrabranch dispute between segments of Congress itself," see Raines, 521 U.S. at 833, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (Souter, J., concurring), but as the Court has thoroughly explained, supra Section IV.3.A, this characterization is incorrect.
Raines instructs the Court to consider whether another plaintiff could bring the case. Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (noting that the Court's holding did not foreclose a constitutional challenge by someone with standing). At oral argument, the Court asked counsel for the President a hypothetical question: Whether, if this case had been brought by Congress as an institutional plaintiff, counsel would agree that it would have standing. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 54 at 71:2-6. The government refused to concede that it would. Id. at 71:7-25, 77:5-20. At the same time, counsel stated, "[j]ust because these plaintiffs don't have standing, it doesn't mean another plaintiff in a proper case might not have standing." Id. at 76:2-3. When pressed by the Court about who that plaintiff would be, counsel conceded: "I have a hard time thinking through which plaintiff would be a proper plaintiff to enforce the Emoluments Clause." Id. at 76:8-10. That no plaintiff would have standing to challenge the President's alleged violation of the Clause is certainly consistent with the President's argument that "when an official fails to first seek congressional consent before accepting emoluments prohibited by the Foreign Emoluments Clause, it only means that the official has violated the Clause, not that each Member of Congress automatically acquires a judicially cognizable personal stake to challenge the violation." Def.'s Suppl. Br., ECF No. 51 at 11. The faulty premise underlying the President's argument, however, is that there is a legislative remedy for violating the Clause. Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 54 at 79:12-80:18.
The Court is aware of one existing
Accordingly, if these plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their claims to address their alleged injury, it is unlikely that another plaintiff would, rendering the Clause unenforceable against the President except via impeachment. As explained, supra at 67, impeachment is an inadequate remedy within the meaning of Raines.
"A plaintiff must allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief."
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief in the form of a declaratory judgment stating that the President is violating the Clause when he accepts emoluments from foreign states without first seeking the consent of Congress, and injunctive relief in the form of an order from the Court enjoining the President from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from a foreign state without obtaining "the Consent of Congress." Id., ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 84-92. The President contends that the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs is unconstitutional, Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1 at 56-58; Reply, ECF No. 28 at 31-34, but does not contest that injunctive relief, were it available, would redress plaintiffs' injury, see generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 15-1; Reply, ECF No. 28. Whether injunctive relief is available here is a merits determination that the Court need not reach at this juncture, and the Court cannot assume, for the purposes of determining whether plaintiffs have standing, that injunctive relief would be unconstitutional. Because the President's alleged violation of the Clause could be redressed by the declaratory and injunctive relief sought, plaintiffs have satisfied the redressability component of the standing inquiry.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have standing to sue the President for allegedly violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The Court therefore
