A U.S. federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Friday which accuses the president of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, according to Politico.
Politico reports that a panel of judges from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Friday to restore the case after it had been dismissed by a lower court in 2017.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and alleges on behalf of various hotel and restaurant owners that their business has been harmed by establishments owned by President Trump, CNN states.
The plaintiffs claim that the president is in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, according to Politico, which prohibits the president and other federal officials from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments.
In a statement on Friday, as reported by CNN, the appeals court said of the plaintiffs’ claim, “It alleges that the marketplace is ... skewed in favor of Trump businesses because of his unlawful receipt of payments from government patrons.”
The court explained, “Despite being comparable in other relevant aspects, the President’s establishments offer government patrons something that plaintiffs cannot: the opportunity, by enriching the President, to obtain favorable government treatment from the President and Executive branch.”
Reuters reports that the plaintiffs provided examples of occasions when members of foreign governments, including the Embassy of Kuwait and a delegation from Malaysia, chose to patronize the Trump International Hotel in Washington and other Trump properties over other businesses.
President Trump’s business dealings as they relate to the emoluments clause have been subject to discussion since he came to office. According to Reuters, Trump has also faced similar lawsuits from Democratic lawmakers, as well as from the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
Judge John Walker, who dissented from the appeals court’s decision Friday, said “there were simply too many variables at play” to make a conclusive decision on whether the plaintiffs had actually suffered harm, according to Politico.
He also stated that the emoluments clause was not meant to restrain “marketplace” activity by presidents, but refers to gifts and titles from foreign governments.