Trump lawyer cites Nixon case in asserting ‘absolute immunity’ in emoluments suit

- Trump lawyer cites Nixon case in asserting ‘absolute immunity’ in emoluments suit

Constitutional Law

A lawyer for President Donald Trump claims an emoluments lawsuit should be dismissed because presidents have “absolute immunity” for actions taken upon the assumption of office.

William Consovoy made the argument in a motion to dismiss filed on Tuesday in Maryland federal court, report Law360, the Hollywood Reporter and Reuters.

The motion cited a 1982 decision, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, that held former President Richard Nixon had absolute immunity in a suit alleging retaliation against a federal employee.

The court ruled in Fitzgerald that there was absolute immunity to damages for official acts that extended to the “outer perimeter” of the president’s responsibilities. (See this analysis by LawFare.)

The Trump motion says the Supreme Court “has concluded that the costs to the nation of allowing such suits to distract the president from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests.”

The suit against Trump, brought by Maryland and Washington, D.C., claims that the president is violating the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments and states through his business empire. The suit seeks an injunction requiring divestment of Trump’s business interests.

U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte ruled in March that D.C. and Maryland have standing, but he narrowed the suit to a claim that the clauses were violated when the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., accepted business from foreign and state governments.

Consovoy’s motion argues several alternate grounds for dismissal. The motion says Trump is being sued in his individual capacity, and there is no personal jurisdiction because Trump lacks personal contacts with Maryland. Even if Maryland were a proper forum, there cannot be a claim for equitable relief, as opposed to a claim for damages, against a government official in his individual capacity, the motion argues.

READ  FDA has ‘unreasonably delayed’ graphic warnings on cigarette packs, Mass. federal court rules

“Nor has Congress provided a statutory cause of action for constitutional violations against federal officers,” the motion says.

If the court reaches the immunity argument, it could provide a vehicle to define the limits of absolute immunity, according to lawyer Aaron Lang of Foley Hoag, who spoke with Law360.

“The ‘outer perimeter’ sounds all-encompassing, but the emoluments case could test its limits,” Lang told Law360.

Be Sociable, Share!

Follow Us!

Author: Edward Lott

Edward Lott, Ph.D., M.B.A. is president and managing partner of Allentown-based ForLawFirmsOnly Marketing, Inc., a local search and digital marketing agency that offers clients lead generation, local seo and Google Maps Domination. Ed has been a digital entrepreneur since 1994, having discovered very early the opportunities the Internet offered. After having spent over two decades helping attorneys grow their practice, Ed joined the staff of ForLawFirmsOnly Marketing as President and Managing Partner, where he is expanding the agency’s cutting-edge services to the legal market. A true marketing futurist, Ed's vast experience working directly with attorneys has given him a unique perspective on law firm marketing not found in many other digital marketing agencies. Ed has reshaped the offerings of ForLawFirmsOnly to focus on growing law firms through a holistic approach to digital marketing evident in the reformulated lead generation processes now in place. Want to learn more about ForLawFirmsOnly Marketing, their lead generation programs, or just talk to Ed about his visions for helping law firms grow? Call him at 855-943-8736.

Scroll Up