THE NEW REFORM CLUB

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Part III: The Mystery of DC & MD v Trump

re: DC & MD v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. June 12, 2017) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 1, 2017 WL 2559732, <http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2017-6-12-DC-MARYLAND-vs-TRUMP.pdf>

I have already discussed Blumenthal v. Trump—the Emoluments Clauses case before Judge Sullivan in the federal district court in the District of Columbia. Blumenthal is one of three such cases. Another such Emoluments-Clauses-related case against the President is DC & MD v. Trump.

Blumenthal was filed on June 14, 2017 by assorted representatives and senators (all Democrats). DC & MD was filed on behalf of the District of Columbia and Maryland by the Attorneys-General for DC and MD (both Democrats) on June 12, 2017 in the federal district court in Maryland. This case was assigned to Judge Petter J. Messitte. The case has since been appealed to the Fourth Circuit. But it is worth a review what happened (or, more precisely, what did not happen) while the case was before Judge Messitte.

Like the Blumenthal case, DC & MD was brought against the President. In Blumenthal, the defendant was the President in his official capacity. What does that mean? It means the plaintiffs are suing the federal government in the name of the President. The President is only a nominal defendant—it is the state (i.e., the federal government) which is the actual defendant. Thus, the federal government is represented (exclusively) in court by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). If the plaintiffs prevail in an official capacity action, their remedy lies against the government, not against the individual who happens to be President. By contrast, in DC & MD, the Plaintiffs sued the President in his official capacity and also in his individual capacity. I am sure it will not surprise you that the second defendant, the Individual Capacity Defendant, is: Donald J. Trump, the individual government official. As such Trump is exposed to some personal liability.

In DC & MD, the reality is that there are two defendants. As in Blumenthal, the Official Capacity Defendant is the federal government which is represented by the DOJ. By contrast, the Individual Capacity Defendant is Donald J. Trump (who happens to be President), and he is represented in the case by his private counsel (i.e., Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC).

The DOJ filed a motion to dismiss. It was fully briefed—i.e., briefed between the DOJ and the Plaintiffs (and assorted amici—including yours truly*). Oral argument was scheduled on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss for June 11, 2018. Additionally, the Individual Capacity Defendant filed its own separate motion to dismiss. It was fully briefed by May 25, 2018—i.e., briefed between the Individual Capacity Defendant and the Plaintiffs (and assorted amici—including yours truly). The Individual Capacity Defendant asked for permission to participate in the June 11, 2018 oral argument. Judge Messitte refused the Individual Capacity Defendant’s request—however, he did promise that he would hold a separate oral argument on the second motion. That was an odd and unexpected decision. Judicial efficiency would have seemed to have called for a single hearing on the two closely related motions. But even if it was a waste to hold separate hearings—such a decision is not unfair. The President was promised his day in court on his own separate motion. Move along—nothing to see here!

What happened next? Judge Messitte is a prompt judge. He issued a decision, less than two months later, on July 25, 2018, on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss in the official capacity action. (The DOJ’s motion was denied.) That left Trump’s individual capacity motion unresolved. The target deadline for deciding such a motion is either: to call for a hearing or to decide the motion within 6 months after the close of briefing. So a hearing or a decision on the President’s individual capacity motion was due by November 25, 2018.

November 25, 2018 came and went. Judge Messitte did not call for a hearing, and he did not decide the motion on the papers by the deadline. (And, yes, the President’s motion to dismiss in his individual capacity remains undecided.) Here is the kicker: Judge Messitte (like Judge Sullivan in Blumenthal) is a prompt judge. If you look at the last judicial report listing motions which remain unresolved beyond the 6-month deadline, you will see that Judge Messitte only has one such motion—and it is not really late because a full trial was scheduled on the matter. See CJRA Report March 2018 <https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/cjra_8_0331.2018.pdf>.

Hundreds and thousands of actions go through the federal courts promptly—Judge Messitte and Judge Sullivan are dedicated judges who do not regularly let motions grow stale beyond the standard 6-month target deadline. So why cannot the President get his motions decided in a timely way just like any other litigant in the federal courts? It is all so difficult to understand.**

Seth

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part III: The Mystery of DC & MD v Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 10, 2019, 7:13 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-iii-mystery-of-dc-md-v-trump.html>.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 8, 2019, 1:38 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-ii-mystery-of-senator-richard.html>.

For Part I, see: Seth Barrett Tillman, The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 7, 2019, 2:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-mystery-of-blumenthal-v-trump.html>.

*I had several filings in this matter. See generally Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party with Respect to Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant in his Individual Capacity, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, and in his individual capacity, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. May 8, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 114, 2018 WL 2159867, 2018 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3174268>, <https://www.scribd.com/document/378704459/DC-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Amicus-brief-of-Seth-Barrett-Tillman-in-Support-of-Neither-Party-with-Respect-to-Individual-Capacity-Motion-to-Dismiss>;

Letter Brief filing Supplemental Authority, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 97, <https://www.scribd.com/document/374271648/D-C-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-3-19-18>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141732>;

Letter Brief, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Seeking an Order in regard to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 88, 2018 WL 1128948, <https://www.scribd.com/document/370301834/Maryland-v-Trump-Correspondence-1-29-18>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3112896>;

Corrected Response [Brief] of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 31, 2017) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 77, 2017 WL 6880026, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 466, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3089868>;

Motion and Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2017) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 27-1, 2017 WL 4685826, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 410, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2996355>.

** But cf. Jed Shugerman, The Supreme Court Could Take a Lesson From the Emoluments Judge, Slate (Apr. 2, 2018, 5:07 PM), <https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/the-supreme-court-could-take-a-lesson-from-the-emoluments-judge.html> (characterizing Judge Messitte’s decisions in this matter as “hav[ing] the courage to enforce the Constitution” (emphasis added)).

Friday, March 08, 2019

Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump

Yesterday, I explained that Judge Sullivan’s decision on the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Emoluments Clause case against the President was due circa December 7, 2018. See <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-mystery-of-blumenthal-v-trump.html>. Judge Sullivan’s decision is now more than 3 months overdue.

According to the Judiciary’s biannual reports*:

Judge Sullivan had zero overdue motions at the end of March 2018;** and,

Judge Sullivan had zero overdue motions at the end of September 2017 and at the end of March 2017; and,

Judge Sullivan had zero overdue motions at the end of September 2016 and at the end of March 2016; and,

Judge Sullivan had zero overdue motions at the end of September 2015 and at the end of March 2015; and, finally,

Judge Sullivan had zero overdue motions at the end of September 2014.

In short, Judge Sullivan has not had a (reported) overdue motion in any of his cases for over 3 years—yet, the President’s motion remains undecided. Does anyone know why?

Seth

Welcome Instapundit readers!

** The September 2018 CJRA report will be available circa May 2019.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 8, 2019, 1:38 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-ii-mystery-of-senator-richard.html>.

For Part I, see: Seth Barrett Tillman, The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 7, 2019, 2:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-mystery-of-blumenthal-v-trump.html>.

Thursday, March 07, 2019

The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. filed 2017), is one of three Emoluments-Clauses-related actions filed against President Trump. The initial Blumenthal complaint was filed on June 14, 2017 in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The case was assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The action was brought by scores of Democratic representatives and senators. It was brought against the President in his official capacity, and so, the President is represented exclusively by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

An amended complaint, the now operative complaint, was filed on August 15, 2017. The DOJ filed a motion to dismiss. It was fully briefed by the parties. There was briefing by assorted amici (including yours truly*). And the court ordered supplemental briefing from the parties responding to amici.

Oral argument on the motion was heard on June 7, 2018.

The court gave a preliminary ruling on the issue of standing, but left all other threshold issues unresolved.** [In parallel litigation in the Southern District of New York (now on appeal in the Second Circuit), the judge held that the parties lacked standing. See CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD, 2017 WL 6524851, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210326, 276 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017) (Daniels, J.), notice of appeal filed on Feb. 16, 2018.] In other words, in the District of Columbia action, Judge Sullivan’s standing-only ruling did not dispose of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. The customary or target deadline for resolving such a motion is 6 months—i.e., the 6-month target to resolve the DOJ’s motion to dismiss was December 7, 2018. December 7 has come and gone. We are now 3 months post-deadline. There has been no call by the court for further clarification, renewed briefing, or renewed oral argument. Yet the DOJ’s motion to dismiss remains unresolved.

Why?

Why the delay?

Where is the decision?

What is going on?

The last published report, as of March 2018, listing federal judges (and how many of their motions are overdue—i.e., beyond the 6 month target) shows that Judge Sullivan had no such outstanding motions.*** So why does this motion remain undecided?

For what it is worth, there is parallel litigation against the President in the Fourth Circuit and Second Circuit. Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit case is scheduled for March 19, 2019, 9:30 AM, in Richmond. The oral argument in the Second Circuit case was on October 30, 2018. It follows that a Second Circuit decision is due circa April 30, 2019. I find it difficult to imagine that Judge Sullivan, in the District of Columbia action, is waiting for guidance from the Second and Fourth Circuits. Those decisions are not due for months. But if the delay is not for that reason, why is there any delay at all?

Seth

Welcome Instapundit readers!

* See Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Senator Richard Blumenthal v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 16-1 (redocketed at ECF No. 40), 2017 WL 4230605, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 30, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2996384>; see also Motion for Leave of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project to be Heard at Oral Argument, Senator Richard Blumenthal v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. May 21, 2018) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 52, 2018 WL 2321735, 2018 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3177824>.

** See Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, 2018 WL 4681001, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167411, 335 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2018) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 59, <https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1154-59>. In parallel litigation in the Southern District of New York (now on appeal in the Second Circuit), the judge held that the parties lacked standing. See CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD, 2017 WL 6524851, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210326, 276 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017) (Daniels, J.), notice of appeal filed on Feb. 16, 2018, <http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=595>

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Mystery of Blumenthal v. Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 7, 2019, 2:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-mystery-of-blumenthal-v-trump.html>.

For Part II, see: Seth Barrett Tillman, Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump, New Reform Club (Mar. 8, 2019, 1:38 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/part-ii-mystery-of-senator-richard.html>.

Monday, March 04, 2019

Smiley's Cigarette Lighter

Smiley's Cigarette Lighter, New Reform Club (Mar. 4, 2019, 9:43 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/smileys-cigarette-lighter.html>.

Sunday, March 03, 2019

Conlawprof, America, and “Race”

Professor GGG,

You wrote: “[S]urely you don’t believe that there is only ‘one race’ in America. I can understand an argument that there are in effect ‘no races’ in America because scientists have disproved what might be called the ontology of race and racism.”

“Race” has more than one meaning. The biological / skin pigment sense is hardly the only one—and, maybe, not the original one used by European explorers when they came upon new civilizations in the Americas and elsewhere during the Age of Exploration.

Consider, for example, Lincoln’s use of the term in 1864:

Speech to the One Hundred Sixty-sixth Ohio Regiment

Washington, D.C.

August 22, 1864

I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the service you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country. I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright—not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.

[END]

<http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/ohio.htm> (emphasis added).

For Lincoln, as used above, “race” means the “race of life” and includes all who are sufficiently part of the polity, and therefore, includes all who can participate in all the aspirations that follow from such membership. In this view, slavery was wrong because it excluded some from that race—and those who were excluded in effect had no “race” at all. Those who were excluded from the polity were deracinated.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, America, and “Race,” New Reform Club (Mar. 3, 2019, 11:35 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/conlawprof-america-and-race.html>.

Full Length Opinions in the Emoluments Clauses Cases, and Related Cases

CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD, 2017 WL 6524851, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210326, 276 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017) (Daniels, J.), notice of appeal filed on Feb. 16, 2018, <http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=595>.

CREW v. Trump, App. No. 18-474, 2019 WL 4383205, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27634, 939 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2019) (2-to-1 panel decision, vacating district court decision, and remanding) (Walker, J., dissenting), Doc. No. 190-1, <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405431/9-13-19-CREW-2nd-Circuit.pdf>, <https://tinyurl.com/y5ff27oy>.

Order, CREW v. Trump, App. No. 18-474 (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2020), ECF No. 212 (revising majority opinion from Sept. 13, 2019--from circa 6 months ago) (Walker & Leval, JJ.) (Judge Droney had already retired, and so is not listed on the order).

CREW v. Trump, App. No. 18-474, 2020 WL 4745067, 971 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2020) (denying en banc review), ECF No. ___, <https://tinyurl.com/y4vyx264>;

Id., slip op. at 111 n.16 (Menashi, J., dissenting from denial of en banc review, and joined by Livingston & Sullivan, JJ.), ECF No. ___, <https://tinyurl.com/y4vyx264> (citing Tillman/JEP amicus appellate brief);

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, 2018 WL 4681001, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167411, 335 F. Supp. 3d 45 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2018) (Sullivan, J.) (issues related to standing only), ECF No. 59, <https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1154-59>.

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, 2019 WL 1923398, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72431, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, *8 n.3 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2019) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 67 (citing Tillman’s September 19, 2017 amicus brief), <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EmolumentsDCmtd-ORDER.pdf>.

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS, 2019 WL 2603864, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105540, 382 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. June 25, 2019) (Sullivan, J.) (denying S.1292 motion), ECF No. 82, <https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.82.0_1.pdf>.

Order, In re Donald Trump (Blumenthal v. Trump), App. No. 19-5196 (D.C. Cir. [Friday] July 19, 2019 [4:40 PM]) (per curiam) (Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins, JJ.), 2019 WL 3285234, ECF No. 7, <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6207494/7-19-19-DC-Circuit-Order.pdf> (exercising discretion to deny the writ and stay, without prejudice, and remanding the matter to the district court forimmediate reconsideration of the motion to certify and the motion to stay the proceedings);

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17:-cv-01154-EGS (Aug. 21, 2019) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 96, 2019 WL 3948478 (granting interlocutory appeal, and staying all discovery), <https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220/gov.uscourts.dcd.187220.96.0.pdf>.

Blumenthal v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 19-5237, 2020 WL 593891, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3765, 949 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (per curiam) (dismissing on standing grounds), <https://tinyurl.com/rzesmt4>;

DC & MD v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, 2018 WL 1516306, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51365, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725 (D. Md. Mar. 28 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 101 (determining standing only), <http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/101-Opinion.pdf>.

DC & MD v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, 2018 WL 3559027, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124129, 315 F. Supp. 3d 875, 880 (D. Md. July 25, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 124 (deciding threshold issues other than standing—in regard to official capacity claims only), <http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/news/opinion-issued-district-columbia-et-al-v-donald-j-trump-2018-07-25t000000>.

DC & MD v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, 2018 WL 5728678, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187785, 344 F. Supp. 3d 828 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 135 (denying DOJ interlocutory appeal in regard to the official capacity claim), <http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/135-opinion.pdf>.

In re Trump (DC & MD v. Trump), [App.] No. 18-2486,2019 WL 2997909, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20418, 928 F.3d 360 (4th Cir. July 10, 2019) (Niemeyer, J.), ECF No. 57, <http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/182486.P.pdf>.

DC & MD v. Trump, [App.] No. 18-2488, 2019 WL 2998602, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20416, 930 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. July 10, 2019) (Niemeyer, J.), ECF No. 48, <http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/182488.P.pdf>.

In re Donald J. Trump (DC & MD v. Trump), No. 18-2486, 958 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. May 14, 2020) (en banc) (denying mandamus relief in a 9-to-6 decision) (official capacity), Dkt. No. 100, 2020 WL 2485573, 2020 WL 2479139, <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6890090/Trump-Emoluments-ca4-2020-05-14.pdf>, <https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182486A.P.pdf>;

DC & MD v. Trump, No. 18-2488, 959 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. May 14, 2020) (en banc) (denying applicant relief in a 9-to-6 decision) (individual capacity case), Dkt. No. 83, 2020 WL 2479675, <file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/18-2488.pdf>, <https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/182488A.P.pdf>;

Unfair Competition Case Against Trump-related commercial entities

K&D, LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC & Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-731 (RJL), 2018 WL 6173449, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199675 (D.D.C. Nov. 26, 2018) (Leon, J.) (dismissing plaintiff’s unfair competition action), <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5280591/11-26-18-Cork-Trump-Opinion.pdf>, aff’d 951 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Griffith, J.).

Twitter Litigation

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 17-cv-5205 (NRB), 2018 WL 2327290, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018) (Buchwald, J.), <https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf>, aff’d App. No. 18‐1691‐cv, 2019 WL 2932440, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20265, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. July 9, 2019), <https://tinyurl.com/yy9l2yj4>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Full Length Opinions in the Emoluments Clauses Cases, and Related Cases, New Reform Club (Mar. 3, 2019, 11:12 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/full-length-opinions-in-emoluments.html>.

Seth Barrett Tillman, A Work in Progress: Select Bibliography of Court filings and Other Sources Regarding the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses Cases, New Reform Club (Feb. 28, 2018, 8:59 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-work-in-progress-select-bibliography.html>, <https://tinyurl.com/ybg5dg6u>.

Friday, March 01, 2019

Tillman & Judicial Education Project Filings in the Emoluments Clauses Cases

Motion for Leave to File Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, In re Donald J. Trump (Trump v. District of Columbia), Sup. Ct. No. 20-331 (U.S. Oct. 14, 2020) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), 2020 WL 6264498, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3690837>.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Defendant-Appellant, DC & MD v. Trump, in his individual capacity, App. No. 20-1839 (4th Cir. Sept. 25, 2020) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), 2020 WL 5760610, ECF No. 16-1, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3690833>.

Motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project for Appointment As Amici Curiae In Support of Appellant, or in the Alternative, Motion For Leave To Participate at En Banc Oral Argument, In re Donald J. Trump, App. No. 18-2486 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2019) (en banc) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), ECF No. 93, 2019 WL 6210425, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3484767>.

Motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project for Appointment As Amici Curiae In Support of Appellant, or in the Alternative, Motion For Leave To Participate at En Banc Oral Argument, DC & MD v. Trump, App. No. 18-2488 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2019) (en banc) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), ECF No. 75, 2019 WL 6210426, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3484769>.

Motion of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project For Leave to Participate in Oral Arguments, In re Donald J. Trump, and DC & MD v. Trump, App. Nos. 18-2486, [18-2488] (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019), ECF No. 52, 2019 WL 979106, 2019 LEXIS __, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340961 (official capacity only).

Motion of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project For Leave to Participate in Oral Arguments, In re Donald J. Trump, and DC & MD v. Trump, App. Nos. [18-2486], 18-2488 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019), ECF No. 43, 2019 WL 979106, 2019 LEXIS __, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340961 (individual capacity only).

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Defendant-Appellant, District of Columbia and State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his individual capacity, App. No. 18-2488 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019), ECF No. 31-1, 2019 WL 411728, 2019 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 3, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3314702.

Amicus Brief of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Petitioner, In re Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity, App. No. 18-2486 (4th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019), ECF No. 28-1, 2019 WL 366219, 2018 U.S. 4th Cir. Briefs LEXIS 11, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3314703.

Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party with Respect to Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant in his Individual Capacity, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, and in his individual capacity, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. May 8, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 114, 2018 WL 2159867, 2018 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 32, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3174268, https://www.scribd.com/document/378704459/DC-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Amicus-brief-of-Seth-Barrett-Tillman-in-Support-of-Neither-Party-with-Respect-to-Individual-Capacity-Motion-to-Dismiss.

Letter Brief filing Supplemental Authority, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 97, https://www.scribd.com/document/374271648/D-C-and-Maryland-v-Trump-Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-3-19-18, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141732.

Letter Brief, from Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Seeking an Order in regard to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint, District of Columbia & State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 8:17-cv-01596-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2018) (Messitte, J.), ECF No. 88, 2018 WL 1128948, https://www.scribd.com/document/370301834/Maryland-v-Trump-Correspondence-1-29-18, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3112896.

Motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project for Appointment As Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant, or in the Alternative, Motion For Leave To Participate at Oral Argument, Blumenthal v. Trump, App. No. 19-5237 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 7, 2019) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), ECF No. __, 2019 WL 5098920, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3463343>.

Amicus Brief of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal, Blumenthal v. Trump, President of the United States, in his official capacity, App. No. 19-5237 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 8, 2019) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), ECF No. __, 2019 WL 5064977, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3340970>.

Motion for Leave of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project to be Heard at Oral Argument, Senator Richard Blumenthal v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. May 21, 2018) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 52, 2018 WL 2321735, 2018 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 46, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3177824.

Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Senator Richard Blumenthal v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 16-1 (redocketed at ECF No. 40), 2017 WL 4230605, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 30, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2996384.

Motion for Leave to File Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Trump v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Sup. Ct. No. 20-330 (U.S. Oct. 14, 2020) (filed by Josh Blackman et al.), 2020 WL 6150339, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3690841>.

Brief of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellee and Affirmance, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, No. 18-0474-cv (2d Cir. June 5, 2018), ECF No. 135, Trans. ID# 2318453, 2018 WL 2722468, 2018 U.S. 2nd Cir. Briefs LEXIS 10, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3183012.

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Leave of Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and Proposed Amicus Curiae Judicial Education Project to be Heard at Oral Arguments, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) (Daniels, J.), ECF No. 87, 2017 WL 4685887, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 409, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3037016.

Declaration of Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer (Exhibit D), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae Judicial Education Project’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) (Daniels, J.), ECF No. 85-5, 2017 WL 7795997, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3037107.

Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae Judicial Education Project’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) (Daniels, J.), ECF No. 85-1, 2017 WL 4685886, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 408, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002345.

Motion and Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-RA (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017) (Abrams, J.), ECF No. 37, 2017 WL 2692500, 2017 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 402, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2985843.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Tillman & Judicial Education Project Filings in the Emoluments Clauses Cases, New Reform Club (Mar. 1, 2019, 7:06 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/03/tillman-judicial-education-project.html>.