By Glynn Wilson –

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A three judge panel of federal appeals court judges has overruled a lower court and allowed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump to go forward for violations of the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by Trump hotels and restaurants for illegally profiting from business with foreign governments at the unfair expense of other hotels and restaurants, especially in New York and Washington.

“We just won our Emoluments Clause appeal against President Trump in the 2d Circuit on behalf of hotels, restaurants, and restaurant workers injured by Trump’s unconstitutional and corrupt acceptance of foreign and domestic business,” Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar who is among the lawyers representing the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Eric Goode, a New York hotel and restaurant entrepreneur and conservationist, said on Twitter. “THIS IS HUGE!!!”

We just won our Emoluments Clause appeal against President Trump in the 2d Circuit on behalf of hotels, restaurants, and restaurant workers injured by Trump’s unconstitutional and corrupt acceptance of foreign and domestic business. THIS IS HUGE!!!https://t.co/1vJE54uad4

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) September 13, 2019

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh also commented on the ruling on Friday, releasing a statement after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reinstated the case brought by hotel and restaurant groups accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clauses.

“Today’s decision allows the suit against President Trump by New York hotels and restaurants to move forward,” Frosh said, who has his own lawsuit going on similar grounds along with the attorney general in the District of Columbia, Karl Racine. “It brings us one step closer to ending Trump’s use of the White House to benefit himself in violation of our nation’s original anti-corruption law.”

“The decision provides additional support for the case brought by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and myself,” Frosh added. “The 2nd Circuit directly addressed and rejected the 4th Circuit panel’s reasoning in dismissing our suit. Our petition for rehearing before the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is pending. We will continue our fight to ensure that the President does not put his personal and financial interests ahead of the interests of our nation and our people.”

In the ruling, which passed in a vote of 2-1 with one dissent, the court said “the judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Writing for the court, Judge Pierre N. Leval summarized the proceedings as follows:

“Plaintiffs—Eric Goode, a restaurateur and hotelier, and Restaurant Opportunities Center United (“ROC”), a non‐partisan, member‐based organization of restaurants and restaurant workers — appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.) dismissing their complaint against Defendant Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, for lack of subject matter (and) jurisdiction. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for the President’s alleged violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the United States Constitution. The President moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, they fall outside the zone of interests of the Emoluments Clauses, their claims do not present a ripe case or controversy within the meaning of Article III, and their suit is barred by the political question doctrine. For the reasons below, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.”

In knocking down a key component of the president’s lawyers’ reasoning, the issue of tracing the issue of why foreign governments would do business with the president’s establishments, Judge Leval wrote that the plaintiffs “need only establish a substantial likelihood that the President’s receipt of emoluments — and his statements and actions impliedly soliciting such emoluments … has some favorable effect on government officials’ demand for the Trump establishments (and, by extension, some unfavorable effect on their demand for Plaintiffs’ competing properties). Plaintiffs need not prove that every government official who chooses a Trump establishment does so to curry favor with the President by enriching him, nor need Plaintiffs prove that a particular government official chose or will choose a Trump establishment for the sole or even the primary reason of earning the President’s favor.”

Back when the case was first filed, the New York Times profiled Eric Goode, who agreed to join the suit as a party who has been directly harmed by the unfair and potentially illegal way Trump has nearly monopolized foreign business since being sworn in as president in 2017, and described other aspects of the case.

The national newspaper of record quoted Sheri Dillon, a lawyer who represents the Trump Organization, disputing the notion that the Emoluments Clause applies to hotel rooms being rented by representatives of foreign governments, arguing that payments based on market rates for services do not represent an emolument. In a news conference held just before Trump’s inauguration, she said that the company would donate profits derived from foreign-governments to the Treasury.

But Goode, whose hotels have catered to foreign dignitaries, wasn’t buying that argument.

“You can’t say you are going to donate the money from foreign dignitaries because it’s their collective entourages. How can you even quantify that?” he said. “The notion that the presidency doesn’t benefit your business is really absurd.”

Of particular interest is the Trump International Hotel in Washington, of course, where the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. has held parties and a lobbying firm working for Saudi Arabia paid for rooms at the hotel after Inauguration Day, for only a couple of examples.

When the question of standing came up with the CREW organization, they sought out other plaintiffs and found Goode to be the only one with the guts to sign his name.

“We spoke to a number of hotel owners. Eric was the only appropriate hotel owner willing to join the suit,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for CREW.

Suing the president “is a difficult decision for any person to make,” said Noah Bookbinder, the group’s executive director.

In April of that year, the suit was updated to add as plaintiffs Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a union that represents restaurant workers and owners, as well as Jill Phaneuf, an event-booker for the Glover Park Hotel, which is near embassies in Washington.

The lawsuit argues that Mr. Goode cannot compete in attracting hotel guests and diners representing foreign governments who believe they may gain favor with Mr. Trump by staying at his establishments.

“As a hotel and restaurant owner, Mr. Goode will be harmed due to a loss of revenue by defendant’s ongoing financial interest in businesses which receive payments from foreign states, the United States, or state or local government,” Mr. Tribe said at the time.

The lawsuit also lays out the popularity of Mr. Goode’s hotels and restaurants by quoting news articles including “Where the Beckhams and Kardashians Really Stay,” published by The Daily Mail tabloid.

“I think this is the first-ever suit we’ve filed that involves the Kardashians,” Mr. Libowitz joked at the time.

The CREW lawsuit would be stronger if more hoteliers had joined, Mr. Goode said. He asked other colleagues to take part. But there were no takers.

“You’d be surprised how incestuous the real estate business is in New York,” he said, “and how many people have deals with the Kushners and the Trumps and may fear retribution.”

Goode is widely known as the founder of the Turtle Conservancy, a non-profit conservation group.

Read more about Eric Goode here.