Judge Barrett is asked about the Emoluments Clause litigation
After nearly four years, the Emoluments Clauses litigation has finally made its way to the Supreme Court. Jon Adler noted that certiorari was denied in Blumenthal v. Trump. In this case, Senator Blumenthal and other members of Congress alleged that President Trump violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. There are still two other pending cases before the Court: Trump v. CREW and Trump v. Maryland & D.C. I will blog about both cases in due course.
In this post, I’d like to highlight several exchanges during Judge Barrett’s hearing that touched on the Emoluments Clauses.
The most extended discourse on the Emoluments Clauses came in a colloquy with Senator Leahy. (Again, I think he is one of the most effective Democratic questioners.) This colloquy begins at 15:36:
SEN. LEAHY: You’re an originalist. Can you explain why the Framers included the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clause[s] in the constitution?
JUDGE BARRETT: I think I could speak generally to what is the well-accepted view that the Foreign Emoluments clause, it’s plain from the text that it’s designed to prevent foreign influence in government affairs.
SEN. LEAHY: It’s part of the anti-corruption clause of the Constitution. Isn’t it?
JUDGE BARRETT: Could you repeat the question?
SEN. LEAHY: It’s sort of like you would say, it’s the anti-corruption clause in the Constitution?
JUDGE BARRETT: I don’t know if I would characterize it as an anti-corruption clause. I would characterize it as I did which one from its very text you can see is designed to prevent foreign countries from having influence.
SEN. LEAHY: I was thinking about the constitutional convention, Governor Edmund Randolph said the clause was thought proper in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, prohibit anyone in office from rece
Article from Latest – Reason.com