CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Constitutional Law Category

President Donald Trump has come under fire, politically, for not fully divesting himself from his personal business interests when he took office. Today, for the second time, he's hearing the same criticism, but legally.

Back in January, a bunch constitutional scholars, Supreme Court litigators, and former White House ethics lawyers sued Trump, claiming that payments made to Trump-owned businesses amounted to violations of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. Earlier today, the District of Columbia and State of Maryland filed a similar suit. So what is the Emoluments Clause and is Trump violating it? You can see the full lawsuit below:

Another day, another Trump executive order, another lawsuit seeking an injunction against said order. This time it's the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a "National non prophet nonprofit working to promote the separation of state and church," suing Trump mere hours after he signed his Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

While the order purports to protect "the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government," critics claim it is an illegal attempt to skirt a largely inconsequential provision of the tax code. All we are waiting on now is the inevitable federal district court order enjoining enforcement of Trump's order. You can read the FFRF's lawsuit requesting that injunction below.

Like many federal judges before him, United States District Judge William H. Orrick of California's Northern District has enjoined the federal government from enforcing one of President Donald Trump's executive orders. Trump's Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," has suffered the same fate as his travel ban, both the original and the revised version.

So why was the latest order ruled unconstitutional? You can see Judge Orrick's reasoning below.

In 2015, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to force the DOJ to publish its rules for conducting warrantless spying on journalists in the United States. The DOJ responded that it had supplied all of the documentation the Foundation requested, aside from information that fell under certain FOIA exceptions.

This week, a U.S. District judge in California ruled that the unpublished rules on media surveillance could remain unpublished, ending the Foundation's lawsuit. You can read the opinion in full, below:

Making headlines across the country tonight, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower federal district court's order, issued last week, blocking President Trump's controversial immigration executive order, commonly referred to as the "Muslim ban," from taking effect nationwide. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a rare unanimous per curium decision, repeatedly explained that the federal government's arguments were untenable.

The lower court put a stop to the executive order, which allowed immigrants, and lawful permanent residents, who were being denied entry under the order, to enter the country. The Ninth Circuit's ruling essentially means that those who would have been affected by the executive order but for the lower court's ruling, will still not be affected by it. However, it should be noted that all of these orders are preliminary, and will only be in place until a final resolution is reached as to the constitutional challenges to the executive order, which could take years if it is allowed to continue.

It seemed as if as soon as President Donald Trump announced his executive order banning Syrian refugees and instituting "extreme vetting" for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, the lawsuits started flying. One of the most important was filed by the state of Washington and was successful in getting a temporary restraining order blocking federal officials from enforcing the order.

Trump's lawyers appealed the TRO, requesting a stay until the case ran its course, but that request was denied over the weekend. The parties are still battling in court, and 97 companies decided to join the fray, filing a brief in support of Washington and claiming, among other things, that the order "effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies." You can see their full filing below:

U.S. District Judge James Robart issued a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump's recent executive order that banned citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations from traveling to the United States. Robart, appointed to the Western District of Washington by Geroge W. Bush, ruled in favor of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who sued over the order last week.

Robart ruled that Washington State had standing to bring the case forward. In his oral ruling, he declared that Washington provided evidence that Trump's order has immediate harm and that the lawsuit against the order has substantial likelihood of succeeding in challenging the constitutionality of the order.

Robart will be issuing a final written ruling. In the meantime, you can see Ferguson's proposed temporary restraining order below.

The average citizen might not be too familiar with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, but we're guessing that weird word will become more commonplace in American diction in the near future. Legally speaking, an emolument is a payment, advantage, or profit gained from a person's possession of elected office. And the reason for its recent prominence in headlines is the new possessor of the highest office in the land.

As many began pointing out long before he was elected, President Donald Trump could run into more than a few ethical dilemmas while in office, not the least of which are foreign governments making payments to his many hotels and businesses. Now the first lawsuit has been filed alleging the new president is violating the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept these payments, and you can see the list of allegations below:

Donald Trump is a litigious individual, and his legal team is fond of the cease and desist letter threatening legal action. So it's no surprise that Trump's attorneys sent the New York Times a Demand for Retraction letter in response to an article entitled "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately."

These letters haven't always been the most convincing. So it's also no surprise that the Times responded, and in no uncertain terms. As for Trump's demand that the paper remove the article from its website and issue an apology, counsel for the Times replied, "We decline to do so." You can read the entire response, and some choice quotes, below.

In its last major decision of the October 2015 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law regulating abortion clinics and doctors placed an undue burden on a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The statute required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and also imposed strict regulations on surgical centers, causing about half the state's abortion clinics to shut down.

The Court, still missing a replacement for conservative justice Antonin Scalia, voted 5-3 that the Texas restrictions were unconstitutional. You can read the majority opinion, along with two dissenting opinions, below: