Judge Peter J. Messitte on “Officers of the United States”

 

Judge Peter J. Messitte in District of Columbia & The State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, individually and in his official capacity as President of the United States, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, 2018 WL 3559027, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124129, 315 F. Supp. 3d 875 (D. Md. July 25, 2018), ECF No. 124, <http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/news/opinion-issued-district-columbia-et-al-v-donald-j-trump-2018-07-25t000000?>:

[Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”)] pronouncements repeatedly cite the broad purpose of the Clauses and the expansive reach of the term “emolument.” See, e.g., Applicability of Emoluments Clause to Proposed Service of Government Employee on Commission of International Historians, 11 Op. O.L.C. 89, 90 (1987) (“Consistent with its expansive language and underlying purpose, the [Foreign Emoluments Clause] has been interpreted as being ‘particularly directed against every kind of influence by foreign governments upon officers of the United States, based upon historic policies as a nation.’” (quoting 24 Op. Att’y Gen. 116, 117 (1902) (emphasis omitted)); Applicability of the Emoluments Clause to Nongovernment Members of ACUS, 17 Op. O.L.C. 114, 121 (1993) (“The language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified.”); Memorandum for Andrew F. Oehmann, Office of the Attorney General, from Norbert A. Schlei, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Invitation by Italian Government to officials of the Immigration & Naturalization Service & a Member of the White House Staff at 2 (Oct. 16, 1962), https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/935741/download (noting “the sweeping nature of the constitutional prohibition and the fact that in the past it has been strictly construed, being directed against every possible kind of influence by foreign governments over officers of the United States.”).

Id. at 901–02 (bold added).

United States v. Nordean, Crim. A. No. 21-175 (TJK), 2022 WL 17583799, at *15 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2022) (Kelly, J.) (“For all these reasons, the Court holds that members of Congress hold an ‘office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States’ and are ‘officers of the United States’ under 18 U.S.C. § 372.”); id. at *11 (“Considered in isolation, Nordean offers a plausible reason for construing the phrase ‘officers of the United States’ as limited to its constitutional meaning, which would exclude members of Congress. But ultimately, the Court finds that Section 372’s entire text, structure, and history point to a broader meaning of the phrase.” (bold added));

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, 2019 WL 1923398, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72431, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, 206 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2019) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 67 (“Memorandum from Norbert A. Schlei, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, to Andrew F. Oehmann, Office of the Att’y Gen., Re: Invitation by Italian Government to Officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service & a Member of the White House Staff 2 (Oct. 16, 1962), https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/935741/download (noting ‘the sweeping nature of the constitutional prohibition and the fact that in the past it has been strictly construed, being directed against every possible kind of influence by foreign governments over officers of the United States’).” (bold added)), <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EmolumentsDCmtd-ORDER.pdf>.

Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46, 94 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2022) (Mehta, J.) (“[I]n the end, President Trump’s argument still requires equating ‘officer’ with the meaning of the term as used in the Constitution. The court already has rejected that equivalency. The question here is whether the Reconstruction-Era Congress would have understood members of Congress to occupy an ‘office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States’ or qualify as an ‘officer of the United States.’ They certainly would have.” (bold added)); 

United States v. Rhodes, Case No. 22-CR-15-APM, 610 F. Supp. 3d 29, 50–53 (D.D.C. June 28, 2022) (Mehta, J.).

Seth Barrett Tillman,  ‘Judge Peter J. Messitte on “Officers of the United States”,’ New Reform Club (June 1, 2023, 2:08 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/06/judge-peter-j-messitte-on-officers-of.html>;