Trump-47’s Presidential (Domestic) Emoluments Clause case: Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump

 

 

Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump was filed during May 2026. It is the only active Emoluments Clause case against Trump. Plaintiffs are alleging violations of the Presidential (Domestic) Emoluments Clause. There is no allegation of any violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The core allegation is that Florida officials and Florida state agencies transferred land to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. The Foundation’s trustees include a Trump’s family member and Trump business associates (including one of his attorneys). Plaintiffs have argued that this land transfer amounts, in effect, to a transfer to Trump and therefore, the conveyance of land is a constitutionally prohibited “emolument”. See U.S. Const. art. II, Section 1, Clause 7.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss supported by two briefs—that is, two briefs for two different sets of Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. One amicus brief (mine) supported Trump’s position, and one amicus brief supported Plaintiffs’ position. The reply is due Thursday, October 1, 2026. No oral argument has been scheduled yet. It is likely an oral argument will be called, but it is also possible that the federal district court judge—Judge Ruiz (S.D. Fla.)—will decide the matter on the papers.

There are several oddities about this case. 

During 2017 to 2021, various plaintiffs brought three lawsuits against Trump-45 in three different federal forums: [i] Southern District of New York, Second Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court (certiorari granted, but subsequently dismissed as moot); [ii] District of Maryland, Fourth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court (certiorari granted, but subsequently dismissed as moot); and, [iii] District of D.C., D.C. Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court (certiorari denied). Now, Plaintiffs in Sistrunk and their attorneys have brought only a single Emoluments Clause related case. It has been brought in the Southern District of Florida and, in all probability, it will eventually be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Without predicting which party will prevail, I can suggest that neither the Southern District of Florida nor the Eleventh Circuit will be a Plaintiff-friendly (or plaintiff-friendly) forum. And why have plaintiffs brought only a single case? And why bring any case, if it will be heard in this forum, where Trump might very well prevail on the merits? 

Why are Plaintiffs in Sistrunk represented by these lawyers? In the 2017 cases, lawyers for Gupta Wessler and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) represented plaintiffs in the SDNY action and in the District of Maryland action. They had some victories (albeit, ultimately inconclusive) in the federal trial courts and in the intermediate federal courts of appeals. The lawyers in the D.C. action were from the Constitutional Accountability Center (“CAC”). They lost in the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. It is lawyers from the CAC that are representing the Plaintiffs in Sistrunk. Why? And why is there no participation from lawyers from Gupta Wessler and from CREW? 

In the three Emoluments Clauses cases from 2017, some 8 amicus briefs supported plaintiffs in the SDNY filed action; some 7 amicus briefs supported plaintiffs in the District of Maryland filed action; and, some 9 amicus briefs supported plaintiffs in the District of Columbia filed action. Several of these amicus briefs were filed on behalf of groups of academics (as opposed to being filed on behalf of a single person, or a single academic, or a single entity). But only one amicus brief has been filed in support of Plaintiffs in Sistrunk, and that brief is filed on behalf of just one person. Where have all the amicus filers gone?—Long time ago? 

Also, why has the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) changed it position? In the 2017 cases, the DOJ argued that any Emoluments Clause case against a President must be brought against the President in his “official capacity” as opposed to his “individual capacity,” and without reference to whether or not the President’s alleged constitutionally tortious behavior was in consequence of some government “custom or policy.” Now, in Sistrunk, the DOJ is arguing that no official-capacity claim against the President can go forward absent an allegation that the President’s alleged tortious behavior was in consequence of some government “custom of policy.” The DOJ’s revised position is what I argued in an amicus brief in 2017; the DOJ opposed my position at that time. Now: All is changed, changed utterly.

Sistrunk is an odd case.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Trump-47’s Presidential (Domestic) Emoluments Clause case: Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump,’ New Reform Club (Sept. 25, 2026, 5:48 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/09/trump-47s-presidential-domestic.html>;