Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 8:17-cv-1596-PJM DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, hereby moves to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The grounds for Defendant’s Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law. Dated: September 29, 2017 Respectfully Submitted: CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General BRETT A. SHUMATE Deputy Assistant Attorney General JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Director /s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN Special Counsel JAMES R. POWERS Trial Attorney Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21 Filed 09/29/17 Page 2 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-3716 Fax: (202) 616-8202 Email: [email protected] 2 Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21 Filed 09/29/17 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that September 29, 2017, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing. Notice of this filing will be sent via email to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. /s/ Jean Lin JEAN LIN 3 Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21-1 Filed 09/29/17 Page 1 of 78 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 8:17-cv-1596-PJM DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21-1 Filed 09/29/17 Page 2 of 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................4 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7 I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS .......................7 A. Requirements for Article III Standing at the Pleading Stage ...................................8 B. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated That They Have Standing Based on Alleged Injuries to Their Sovereign Interests. .........................................................9 1. Maryland’s alleged loss of political power in joining the Union ...............10 2. Maryland’s alleged loss of tax revenues ....................................................12 3. Maryland’s and D.C.’s enforcement of their laws and the “intolerable dilemma” they allegedly face. ................................................16 C. Plaintiffs Have Not Established Standing Based on Alleged Injuries to Their Quasi-Sovereign Interests. ...........................................................................19 D. Plaintiffs Have Not Established Standing Based on Alleged Injuries to Their Proprietary Interests ...............................................................................................22 II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSES AND EQUITY REQUIRES DISMISSAL......................................................26 III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSES .............................................................................................30 A. The Emoluments Clauses Prohibit Benefits Arising from the U.S. Official’s Provision of Service Pursuant to an Office or Employment .................30 1. The text of the Emoluments Clauses .........................................................31 2. Adoption and historical interpretation of the Clauses ................................38 i. Adoption of the Emoluments Clauses .................................................38 ii. Historical interpretation of the Clauses ...............................................41 Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21-1 Filed 09/29/17 Page 3 of 78 3. Application of the Clauses since the founding era .....................................45 B. Plaintiffs’ Arguments in Support of Their Interpretation Have No Merit .............50 IV. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. .......................54 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................56 ii Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21-1 Filed 09/29/17 Page 4 of 78 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Postal Workers, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) .................................................................................................................. 28 Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ........................................................................................................... passim Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) .............................................................................................................. 9, 15 Almy v. Sebelius, 679 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 19 Arias v. DynCorp, 752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 13 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) .................................................................................................. 26, 27, 36 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 9 Barahona v. Holder, 691 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 51 Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 18 Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994) .................................................................................................................. 33 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 9 CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 7 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 14 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) .................................................................................................. 8, 14, 17, 18 iii Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 21-1 Filed 09/29/17 Page 5 of 78 Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987) .................................................................................................................. 28 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) .................................................................................................................. 56 Ctr. for Reprod. Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)...................................................................................................... 28 District of Columbia ex rel. Am. Combustion, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 797 F.2d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................ 17 Doe v. Va. Dep’t of State Police, 713 F.3d 745 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 15 Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26 (1990) .................................................................................................................... 33 eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 27 In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304 (4th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................. 19 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 6 Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................... 8 Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927) .................................................................................................................... 13 Frank Krasner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Montgomery County, 401 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 15 Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) ........................................................................................................ 4, 54, 56 Free