Whether plaintiffs who claim to compete with businesses in which the President of the United States has a financial interest can seek redress in an Article III court to enforce the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution against the President

QUESTION PRESENTED The Foreign Emoluments Clause provides that no person holding an “Office of Profit or Trust” under the United States “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.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 8. The Domestic Emoluments Clause provides that, apart from the President’s compensation for the period for which he is elected, he “shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, Cl. 7. In this case, various members of the hospitality industry sued President Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity, asserting an implied cause of action to enforce the Emoluments Clauses. The district court granted the President’s motion to dismiss, holding that alleged business competitors cannot seek redress in an Article III court to enforce the Emoluments Clauses against the President. A panel of the court of appeals vacated and remanded. The question presented is: Whether plaintiffs who claim to compete with businesses in which the President of the United States has a financial interest can seek redress in an Article III court to enforce the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution against the President. (I)