Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to correct the district court's denial of the President's motion to dismiss and refusal to certify an interlocutory appeal

QUESTIONS 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, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland sued President Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity, asserting an implied cause of action to enforce the Emoluments Clauses. The district court denied a motion to dismiss and refused to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). A panel of the court of appeals granted the President’s petition for a writ of mandamus, but the en banc court of appeals, by a 9-6 vote, held that mandamus was not available here. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate because, contrary to the holding of the court of appeals, the district court’s denial of the President’s motion to dismiss was clear and indisputable legal error. 2. Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate, contrary to the holding of the court of appeals, where the district court’s refusal to grant the President’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal was a clear abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). (I)