User:Dakleman/Comparison of Claims

Comparison of Claims in Lawsuits alleging violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution is a breakdown of the complaints made against Donald Trump to identify commonalities traced to primary and secondary sources for a future WikiProject on these lawsuits or related legal issues. Users are free to edit, but I ask for your patience until 7 years ago enforcing Wikipedia is an encyclopedia until we can figure out what of this (if any) can be developed well enough to add to/form Articles.

Lawsuits alleging Trump's actions violate of the Emoluments Clause

Main article: List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump § Lawsuits arising out of Trump's actions as president

• CREW v. Trump
  • Case in Main
    • Original Complaint
    • First Amended Complaint
    • Second Amended Complaint
    • Amici Briefs
    • (Pending) Response
    • Reply to Response
  • Motion to Dismiss
    • For
    • (Pending) Against
    • Rebuttal
  • Timeline
    • Initiation
    • Expansion
    • Motion to Dismiss
• D.C. and Maryland v. Trump
  • Case in Main
    • Original Complaint
    • (Pending) Amici Breifs
    • (Pending) Response
    • Reply to Response
  • (Pending) Motion to Dismiss
    • For
    • Against
    • Rebuttal
  • Timeline
    • Initiation
• Blumenthal v. Trump
  • Case in Main
    • Original Complaint
      • OCp36 Summary of argument
      • OC54 Lawyers for Plaintiff
    • (Pending) Amici Breifs
    • (Pending) Response
    • Reply to Response
  • (Pending) Motion to Dismiss
    • For
    • Against
    • Rebuttal
  • Appearances
    • For Plaintiffs
    • For Defense
  • Timeline
    • Initiation

Law Citations

Case Law

• Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n

Constitution

• Foreign Emoluments Clause
• Domestic Emoluments Clause

Scholarly Works

• Eisen2016

Other Authorities

• Earlier Foreign Emoluments Clause
• 2Farrand389
• 3Farrand327
• The Federalist No. 73
• Major James D. Dunn, B-251084, 1993 WL 426335, at *3 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 12, 1993)
• OLC1994
• OLC2009a7
• OLC2009a8

Recent News For Judicial Notice

• NPR2016
• OGE2016
• News Conference
• ProPublica

Claims

Claims of type

CREW v. Trump					DC & MD v. Trump			Blumenthal v. Trump			Claim
Second Amended Complaint	Motion to Dismiss	Amicus Brief	Response	Reply	Complaint	Response	Reply	Complaint	Response	Reply
¶1	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's "business interests as vast, complicated, and secret"
¶1	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's "business interests are creating countless conflicts of interest"
¶1	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's "business interests are creating ... unprecedented influence by foreign governments"
¶1	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's "business interests ... result in ... violations of ... the “Foreign Emoluments Clause,”"
¶1	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's "business interests ... result in ... violations of ... the “Domestic Emoluments Clause,”"
¶2	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Foreign Emoluments Clause requires consent of Congress when accepting foreign presents or emoluments
¶2	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	"Congress has not consented to Defendant’s receipt of the presents or emoluments at issue"
¶3	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Trump's violations of Foreign Emoluments Clause "pose a grave threat to the United States and its citizens"
¶3	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Text of Foreign Emoluments Clause forbid Trump's behavior
¶3	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Purpose of Foreign Emoluments Clause forbid Trump's behavior
¶4	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Foreign Emoluments Clause is "a strict prophylactic rule" against historical examples of corruption
¶5	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	Domestic Emoluments Clause forbids "any other Emolument" from United States or any of the 50 states

See Also

• User:Dakleman/List of Plaintiffs for full list of 196 plaintiffs in Blumenthal v. Trump

Reading List

Inbox

• Dorf on Law (emoluments) Dec 19, 2016 - Jun 26, 2017
• Take Care Blog (emoluments) Mar 24, 2017 - Jun 26, 2017
• SITE DOWN
• Zephyr Teachout; Seth Barrett Tillman, "The Foreign Emoluments Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8", Interactive Constitution: Common Interpretation, National Constitution Center
  • Zephyr Teachout, "The Foreign Emoluments Clause", Interactive Constitution: Matters of Debate, National Constitution Center
  • Seth Barrett Tillman, "The Foreign Emoluments Clause Reached Only Appointed Officers", Interactive Constitution: Matters of Debate, National Constitution Center

Pre-2016

• Zephyr Teachout (2009), "The Anti-Corruption Principle" (PDF), Cornell Law Review, 94: 341–413, Ultimately, three of the biggest protections created by the Framers were the Ineligibility Clause, the Emoluments Clause, and the Foreign Gifts Clause
• Zephyr Teachout (2012), "Gifts, Offices, and Corruption", Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 107: 30–54
• Seth Barrett Tillman (2013), "The Original Public Meaning Of The Foreign Emoluments Clause: A Reply To Professor Zephyr Teachout", Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, 107 (18): 180–208

2016

• Rosalind S. Helderman; Tom Hamburger (Nov 25, 2016), "Trump's presidency, overseas business deals and relations with foreign governments could all become intertwined", Washington Post, Ethics experts say that if Trump takes no action to distance himself from his business holdings, he is likely to face questions about whether he is pursuing policy in the national interest or for his own business advantage. It is also possible that Trump could run afoul of a constitutional provision prohibiting presidents from accepting favors, or "emoluments," from foreign leaders.
• Matthew Stephenson (Nov 29, 2016), "Donald Trump Will Probably Violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause. So What?", Global Anticorruption Blog, Even if some party could establish that he or she had standing to bring a suit against the President for violation of the Clause, it's just not realistic to imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would intervene. My guess is that if such a suit were brought, and weren't immediately dismissed on standing grounds, the courts would invoke the little-used "Political Question Doctrine" to decline to rule on the issue. In any case, what would the remedy be? Would the Court order the President to give back the (excess) financial gain he received from a foreign government? Would it order the President to divest his business holdings, or place them in a blind trust? While perhaps these ideas might not be totally outlandish in a parallel universe, I have a hard time imagining that you'd get five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (one of whom would almost certainly be a recent Trump appointee) to go along with something like that. The Court would likely say that this is one of those issues that should be left to the political branches.
• Norman L. Eisen; Richard W. Painter (Dec 7, 2016), "Donald Trump will still be violating the Constitution as soon as he's sworn in", The Atlantic, after a blizzard of reporting on the president-elect's foreign business relations in recent days, it appears that Trump will be in violation of this clause of the Constitution from the moment he takes office—and the plan for his business that he hinted at on Twitter last week does not solve the problem.
• Richard Painter; Norman Eisen (Dec 13, 2016), "Donald Trump will still be violating the Constitution as soon as he's sworn in", Washington Post, So Trump's concept of "no new deals" is questionable. And it certainly is not enough to address the concerns about Trump's conflicts that we and many others have raised in The Washington Post and elsewhere. Continuance of the current Trump empire means that it will be rife with opportunities for quid pro quos and other illegalities. Most immediately, if those businesses continue to receive foreign government payments, Trump will be in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution from his first day as president.

Jan 2017

• Norman Eisen; Richard W. Painter; Lawerence H. Tribe (Jan 10, 2017), "5 Ways You'll Know if Trump Is Playing by the Rules", Politico, Through a provision called the Foreign Emoluments Clause, the Constitution puts strict limits on the president's ability to receive cash and other benefits from foreign governments. The founders recognized the importance of assuring the American people that the president is acting only in their best interest. Part of the way they did that was by barring "presents [and] emoluments ... of any kind whatever" from foreign sovereigns or their agents. That means gifts, cash and other benefits (such as building permits and trademarks), that currently flow into Trump's businesses on an ongoing basis. For an example, one need look no further than Trump's hotel a few blocks from the White House, which has aggressively courted foreign government business since his election. Moreover, Trump's U.S. holdings also raise issues under another constitutional prohibition forbidding emoluments to the president from states and other domestic governmental actors. The Constitution strictly forbids all this; if Trump does not divest all his business interests, he will violate the most fundamental charter of our nation immediately after he takes the vow to uphold it on Inauguration Day.
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Jan 11, 2017), Conflicts of Interest and the President (PDF) (White Paper)
• Seth Barrett Tillman (Jan 19, 2017), "The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Chief Executive", Minnesota Law Review, 102

Mar 2017

• Ron Fein; Brianne Gorod (Mar 21, 2017), "Lining Trump's Pockets", US News and World Report, Congress has complied with its part of the Domestic Emoluments Clause: It set a fixed salary of $400,000 for the president. Trump has said he won't keep that salary, but either way, his failure to give up ownership of his businesses means that he may end up receiving well more than $400,000 from the federal treasury before he leaves office. And that's exactly what the Domestic Emoluments Clause prohibits.
• Sarah Posner (Mar 22, 2017), "Gorsuch is being cagey about his views on Trump and ethics. That could pose huge problems.", Washington Post, Apparently using this pending litigation [CREW v. Trump] as an excuse, Gorsuch demurred from Leahy's questions on the grounds that if confirmed, he would likely hear such a case. Throughout his hearings, Gorsuch has leaned on this crutch — that Supreme Court nominees should not comment on the merits of pending cases or cases that are likely to come before the court. ... But the evasion on the emoluments clause is different. For one thing, there is no Supreme Court precedent on the emoluments clause, a further sign that Trump's alleged violation of it would be unprecedented, both legally and politically. Rather than addressing the gravity of these political corruption charges and the threat Trump's alleged wrongdoing poses to the Constitution and our democracy, Gorsuch described the emoluments clause more as a quaint relic that "sat in a rather dusty corner" for most of the nation's history.
  "Among other things, it prohibits members of the government of this country from taking emoluments — gifts from foreign agents," he went on. "The question is what exactly that means."
• Dan Alexander (Mar 24, 2017), "After Promising Not To Talk Business With Father, Eric Trump Says He'll Give Him Financial Reports", Forbes, less than two minutes later, he concedes that he will continue to update his father on the business while he is in the presidency. "Yeah, on the bottom line, profitability reports and stuff like that, but you know, that's about it." How often will those reports be, every quarter? "Depending, yeah, depending." Could be more, could be less? "Yeah, probably quarterly." One thing is clear: "My father and I are very close," Eric Trump says. "I talk to him a lot. We're pretty inseparable."
• Max Yoeli (Mar 28, 2017), "President Trump and His Businesses: Not So Separate After All", Brennan Center for Justice, It turns out, however, that the president ceded neither [control nor ownership of assets]. Late last week, it emerged that, far from being walled off from his businesses as he promised, President Trump is actually getting regular financial updates on them.

Apr 2017

• Sharon LaFraniere; Danny Hakim (Apr 11, 2017), "Trump's Trademark Continues Its March Across the Globe, Raising Eyebrows", New York Times, in a brief expected to be filed this month, Justice Department lawyers will counter that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts and compensation for services, not ordinary, arm's-length commercial transactions with foreign governments.
• Joshua Matz (Apr 18, 2017), "Will Trump's Lawyers Rewrite and Invert the Emoluments Clause?", Take Care Blog, In this case as in so many others, Congress's authority to act and authorize does not mean that its failure to act precludes a judicial accounting of illegal conduct.
  Payments to the President from powers are illegal unless Congress says they are not. So long as Congress remains silent, the President is breaking the law, and injured parties have every right to seek remedy in federal court. That is the nature of our constitutional system.
• Michael C. Dorf (Apr 19, 2017), "Competitor Plaintiffs in Emoluments Clause Case Bolster Standing", Take Care Blog, That said, although Havens remains good law to support CREW's standing in the lower courts, the current Supreme Court might either overrule Havens or (mis)construe it as inapplicable to CREW, if and when the case arrives there. Although lower courts are forbidden from anticipatorily overruling SCOTUS cases on the ground that subsequent doctrinal developments have weakened them, the SCOTUS can of course overrule its prior decisions. Accordingly--and prudently--the CREW complaint has now been amended to add claims by parties that stand to lose money as a consequence of Trump's Emoluments Clause violations: a restaurant association suing on behalf of itself, its member restaurants, and restaurant workers; and Jill Phaneuf, a Washington, D.C.-based events booker who works with non-Trump hotels. The addition of these plaintiffs should make the lawsuit bulletproof on standing grounds.
• Matthew Stephenson (Apr 20, 2017), "CREW's New and Improved Legal Complaint Against Trump", Global Anticorruption Blog, Before CREW filed its suit, I was skeptical about the prospects of a judicial remedy for this alleged Emoluments Clause violation—not because I didn't think that President Trump was in violation of the clause (quite the opposite), but because I didn't think it was realistic to expect that a court would be willing to order the sitting President to rearrange his financial affairs (or hold him in contempt if he didn't). ... The explanation for why the addition of these plaintiffs substantially strengthens the case for standing is fairly straightforward, though a full explanation as to why would require an excursion into questions of legal doctrine that are likely both dull and opaque to most non-lawyers (and many lawyers as well). The short version is that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Article III of the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to cases brought by plaintiffs who have suffered a concrete, particularized injury that is traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and could be redressed by a favorable court order; the constitutionally-required injury can't be a general, abstract, or ideological interest in the issue.
• Seth Barrett Tillman (Apr 23, 2017), "Business Transactions and President Trump's 'Emoluments' Problem", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 40 (3): 759–771
• Matthew Stephenson (Apr 25, 2017), "When, If Ever, Does a Favorable Legal or Regulatory Decision Count as an "Emolument"?", Global Anticorruption Blog, On the one hand, it seems obvious that favorable legal or regulatory decisions must count as an emoluments; otherwise, a whole swath of activity that the Emoluments Clauses seem clearly designed to prevent would escape proscription. On the other hand, it seems obvious that favorable legal or regulatory decisions can't count as emoluments; otherwise, the Emoluments Clauses prohibit a whole swath of activity that those clauses seem clearly not intended to cover.
• Julia Harte (Apr 26, 2017), Exclusive: A New York hotel deal shows how some public pension funds help to enrich Trump, Public pension funds in at least seven U.S. states have invested millions of dollars in an investment fund that owns a New York hotel and pays one of President Donald Trump's companies to run it, according to a Reuters review of public records. That arrangement could put Trump at risk of violating an obscure constitutional clause, some legal experts say. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
  • Josh Voorhees (Apr 26, 2017), "Donald Trump May Also Be Violating a Different Emoluments Clause", The Slatest
• Leah Litman (Apr 26, 2017), "Standing Up For Standing in CREW v. Trump", Take Care Blog
• Leah Litman (Apr 27, 2017), "On Standing In CREW v. Trump Part I: Defining The Injury", Take Care Blog
• Leah Litman (Apr 28, 2017), "On Standing In CREW v. Trump Part II: More Distinctions Without A Difference To Competitor Standing Cases", Take Care Blog

May 2017

• Robert G. Natelson (May 11, 2017), "The Original Meaning of 'Emoluments' in the Constitution", Georgia Law Review, 52 (1)
• Joshua Matz (May 25, 2017), "Trump's Foreign Emoluments: Another Fig Leaf Falls Away", Take Care Blog, If the Trump Organization thinks that will solve Trump's breach of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, it is mistaken. This plan responds to only a fraction of Trump's emoluments and presents (those given by foreign powers to Trump through hotel rentals). And it is inadequate as a safeguard against emolument violations even in that limited context. The Constitution requires that Trump actually stop receiving foreign presents and emoluments, not that he forge an appearance of avoiding some of them.
• John Mikhail (May 28, 2017), ""Emolument" in Blackstone's Commentaries", Balkinization (Blog), The majority of Blackstone's usages of "emolument" involve benefits other than government salaries or perquisites. They also reflect the broader meaning of the term—"profit, "gain," "benefit," or "advantage"—one finds in the principal eighteenth-century English dictionaries.
• Jed Shugerman (May 30, 2017), "George Washington's secret land deal actually strengthens CREW's Emoluments claim [Updated]", Shugerblog, Washington's effort to keep these dealings quiet at least suggests he understood they were politically, legally, and maybe constitutionally problematic.

Jun 2017

• "Emoluments Lawsuit Is Warranted", The Courant, Jun 18, 2017, The lawsuit doesn't specifically accuse Mr. Trump of corruption, but it claims that Congress was deprived of its constitutional right to decide whether the Trump Organization could receive money from those foreign sources, because Mr. Trump did not clear the payments with them first. "An officeholder ... would not be the sole judge of his own integrity," the lawsuit states.
• Gretchen Frazee (Jun 22, 2017), "How the emoluments clause is being used to sue Trump", PBS Newshour, Tillman goes further than many other scholars and also argues that the emoluments clause does not apply to the president because it is derived from a British law that refers to appointed rather than elected officials. The Department of Justice did not argue this point in its written defense.
• John Mikhail; Trevor Burrus (Jun 22, 2017), "A law professor and CATO Institute fellow tell us if President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause", WGN Radio (Radio Debate), Moderated by John Williams
• Mike DeBonis (Jun 23, 2017), "On Trump and Russia, Oversight Chair Trey Gowdy says he will stay in his lane", Washington Post, Gowdy said there were Trump-related matters that he did see falling within the Oversight panel's purview — procedures for issuance of security clearances, for instance, and the constitutional prohibition on accepting "emoluments" from foreign benefactors. ... With regard to the emoluments question, Gowdy said he was primarily interested in plumbing the legal implications of the constitutional clause, which maintains that federal officials must not "accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
  "The first challenge to me is understanding the parameters, how has it historically been applied, and then from that, you can determine whether or not you think there's been a breach," he said.
  Gowdy suggested he would like to see Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional law professor, and a Republican counterpart on the committee explore the question.
• Erwin Chemerinsky (Jun 26, 2017), "Trump's 'emoluments' defense argues he can violate the Constitution with impunity. That can't be right", Los Angeles Times, Trump's position is that the federal courts can hear none of these suits because no one has "standing" to sue him for these constitutional violations. But that can't be right: It cannot be that the president can violate the Constitution with impunity and no court has the authority to hold him accountable. ... The president's position is that none of these plaintiffs fits the legal criteria of "standing" — that is, they can't claim to have been personally injured so they cannot sue. But it is hard to imagine who would have standing if not these plaintiffs. Accepting Trump's argument would effectively mean that no one would ever be able to sue over violations of the emoluments clauses.
• Paul Barrett; Dune Lawrence (Jun 27, 2017), "The Litigation Storm Around President Trump", Bloomberg Businessweek, Liberal activists are thrilled to be suing President Donald Trump. "The reason you're seeing a proliferation of lawsuits against President Trump is that he brought his lifelong contempt for the rule of law with him to the Oval Office," says Norman Eisen, the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama.
  Eisen now heads a watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which—along with Democratic members of Congress, the state of Maryland, and the District of Columbia—are suing Trump for violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause. That long-dormant anti-corruption provision forbids public officials from accepting payments from foreign governments. The suits accuse Trump of profiting from private businesses such as his Washington hotel, which has been patronized by officials from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other countries.
• William J. Watkins Jr. (Jun 27, 2017), "The Emoluments of Sore Losers", National Review, In Hoyt v. United States (1850), the U.S. Supreme Court defined emolument as "embracing every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office." Accordingly, President Trump argues that "emolument" must be understood as a prohibited benefit arising from the services a federal officer provides to a foreign power, either on account of his office (making a decision favorable to a foreign government for pay) or as an employee/agent of the foreign power. He further argues that the foreign-emoluments clause does not prohibit his companies from engaging in market transactions on the same terms as any other citizen or private business.
  • Charles P. Pierce (Jun 29, 2017), "Conservatives Are Now Defending Trump, Inc., Because Why Not?", Esquire, The essay by one William J. Watkins, Jr., seeks to pooh-pooh the president*'s obvious attempts to monetize his office in apparent violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which is the subject of current legal action. He begins, however, by demonstrating a charming belief in the essential good faith of a guy who regularly stiffed glaziers and masons who couldn't afford to sue him.
• John McColgan (Jun 28, 2017), "Political Philosophy:'Emolument' debate heating up", Wallowa County Cheitain, Less than six months into his presidency, examples already abound of instances where Trump could be in violation of the Constitution's emoluments prohibitions. Until recently, the First Lady resided at Trump Towers in New York, which necessitated that the Secret Service pay with our tax dollars directly into Trump's pocket for the rental of two floors there. And on many weekends since his election, Trump has brought his entire publicly paid entourage, along with national media and international VIPs vying for his attention and favor, to stay at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
  The growing appearance of the quid pro quo is also troubling. The head of China's government visited Trump in Florida a few weeks after China had announced it had awarded Trump 38 trademarks, which was an extremely lucrative and timely advance of Trump's business interests in that market.
• Joy Shrum (Jun 28, 2017), "State AG explains Trump lawsuit", TheBayNet.com, Attorney General Frosh alleges President Trump's wide-ranging business entanglements violate the Constitution's Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. "Elected leaders must serve the people, and not their personal financial interests. That is the indispensable foundation of a democracy. We cannot treat a president's ongoing violations of the Constitution and disregard for the rights of the American people as the new and acceptable status quo. The president, above all other elected officials, must have on the interests of Americans at the heart of every decision."
• Max Greenwood (Jun 28, 2017), "Obama ethics czar: Trump fundraiser at his DC hotel 'illegal'", The Hill, Eisen argued that by allowing Trump to hold a fundraising event for his personal reelection campaign at the hotel, he is violating both the emoluments clause and the terms of his real estate company's lease with the federal government.
  Trump's D.C. hotel has been a source of controversy for the president in the past, particularly over whether foreign officials and dignitaries could patronize the hotel to curry favor in Trump's White House.

External links

• CREW v. Trump, Docket Report, vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Jan 23, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Original Complaint, Docket 1 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Jan 23, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • First Amended Complaint, Docket 22 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Apr 18, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Second Amended Complaint, Docket 28 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Memorandum in support of motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim, Docket 35 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Jun 9, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Brief for Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Defendant, Docket 37, Attachment 1 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Jun 16, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Order granting 37 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document, Docket 39, vol. No. 1:17-cv-00458, S.D.N.Y., Jun 28, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, Docket Report, vol. No. 8:17-cv-01596, D.M.D., Jun 12, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Complaint, Docket 1 (PDF), vol. No. 8:17-cv-01596, D.M.D., Jun 12, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Blumenthal v. Trump, Docket Report, vol. No. 1:17-cv-01154, D.D.C., Jun 14, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Complaint, Docket 1 (PDF), vol. No. 1:17-cv-01154, D.D.C., Jun 14, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Notice of Appearance by Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra on behalf of All Plaintiffs, Docket 2, vol. No. 1:17-cv-01154, D.D.C., Jun 14, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Notice of Appearance by Brian Rene Frazelle on behalf of All Plaintiffs, Docket 3, vol. No. 1:17-cv-01154, D.D.C., Jun 14, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Notice of Appearance by Brianne Jenna Gorod on behalf of All Plaintiffs, Docket 4, vol. No. 1:17-cv-01154, D.D.C., Jun 14, 2017 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)