The Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause

The foreign emoluments clause was included in the Constitution to protect against bribery and corruption of federal officials by foreign governments.

Traditionally, foreign governments have given gifts and valuable items to visiting heads of state and other government officials in an attempt to gain favor.

However, the Framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the federal government and its officials from foreign influence.

Where Is the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution?

The emoluments clause is found in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, which states:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 22, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." The emoluments clause is meant as a broad prohibition against accepting emoluments and other gifts.

What Does the Emoluments Clause Prohibit?

The emoluments clause prohibits any government official from receiving a "present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind" from a foreign government without the approval of Congress. However, several presidents have received valuable gifts from foreign governments.

For example, Congress gave Presidents Martin Van Buren and John Tyler approval to accept gifts, but they were to be turned over to the government and not kept personally.

When the Constitution was written, an emolument was generally believed to mean any type of profit, benefit, or advantage. Today it is also interpreted to mean benefits or profits from private businesses. The broadest interpretation is that government officials should not receive anything of value from a foreign power without Congressional approval.

In 1993, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an advisory opinion that non-governmental members (attorneys and business people working in private practice) of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which fulfills a governmental purpose, were considered officers under the emoluments clause. 

The Office opined that members of the conference should not receive payments from their partnerships or firms if the payment would include some share or revenue generated from foreign government clients. This applied even though the conference members may not have worked directly on matters involving foreign governments. It was enough that the payments were paid for another partner's work and paid out to the conference member as a part of the firm's shared profits.

This advisory opinion shows the broad intent of the prohibition of emoluments. However, the Supreme Court has never discussed the issue of emoluments. So the exact interpretation of the emoluments clause remains speculative.

Emoluments Lawsuits Against President Trump

The subject of emoluments came to the forefront after the election of President Donald Trump. Trump had wide-ranging foreign business interests through the Trump Organization. There was concern that his continued involvement in the business could lead to trouble with the emoluments clause.

In the past, presidents transferred their assets to a blind trust to avoid any implications of conflicts of interest. Trump did not follow this precedent. Although he stepped away from the business (transferring operational control to his sons) and formed a regular trust, he continued to receive business briefings and was able to receive distributions from the trust throughout his presidency.

The emolument issues raised regarding Trump's continued involvement with his business included:

  • Payments from foreign governments for officials to stay or host events at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
  • Entities owned by foreign governments paying rent at Trump Tower in New York City
  • The Chinese government granted 40 trademarks to Trump businesses

Trump did not seek the approval of Congress, nor did Congress grant approval on its own for these actions.

Several lawsuits were filed against Trump for these alleged violations, seeking to enjoin him from further violating the emoluments clause throughout his presidency.

In Blumenthal v. Trump, 215 members of Congress sued Trump for violating the emoluments clause. They alleged they had no other means of enforcement to stop the president from continuing to violate the clause. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of standing.

Below, we discuss two other cases emoluments cases brought against Trump and what happened when they reached the Supreme Court.

District of Columbia v. Trump

In District of Columbia v. Trump, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland brought suit against Trump (as president and as an individual) regarding Trump's ownership of the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. and the bar, restaurant, and event spaces located there. 

The plaintiffs alleged that foreign governments were intentionally patronizing Trump International because of its connection with Trump in an attempt to curry favor with him. As cited in the complaint, a diplomat explained, "'Isn't it rude to come to [the President's] city and say 'I'm staying at your competitor?'" 

The plaintiffs alleged that the foreign governmental business at the hotel amounted to emolument. When a district court agreed to hear the case, Trump asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to allow an immediate appeal or dismiss it. The Fourth Circuit denied his request.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Another suit, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump, brought similar claims against the president regarding his ownership of Trump International Hotel, Trump World Tower, Trump Tower, and other businesses in New York City.

The plaintiffs claimed that the president benefitted and would continue to benefit from payments made by foreign governments and agents at his hotels, restaurants, and other spaces in violation of the emoluments clause. Trump argued that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries did not give them standing to sue. But in 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case to proceed.

Supreme Court Dismisses Without Deciding on the Merits

Trump appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court. However, by the time the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2021, Trump only had one month remaining in his term. Therefore, the court vacated the appellate court judgments and directed the courts to dismiss the cases as moot.

The finding of mootness meant that the Supreme Court would not rule on the matter of emoluments. This meant no guidance was provided regarding:

  • The meaning of “emolument”
  • What constitutes a violation of the clause
  • Who has standing to bring a case for violation of the clause
  • What can be done to prevent a violation of the clause in the future

The only legal determination of the meaning of emolument was decided by the District Court in District of Columbia v. Trump. Solely for the purpose of the standing argument, the court assumed that an emolument covers “anything of value.”

Was this helpful?

More On the Constitution

Learn about the most important legal document in the United States.

Read more >