WASHINGTON _ A federal judge for the second time on Wednesday declined to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Maryland's attorney general alleging that President Donald J. Trump violated a constitutional prohibition on financially benefiting from his position by doing business with foreign governments.
U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt said the case _ centered on the luxury Trump International Hotel in Washington _ may proceed, rejecting challenges from the president's attorneys that it failed to state an adequate legal claim.
The judge's decision could leave the Trump Organization open to disclosing sensitive documents during the case's discovery phase.
"We are entitled to know every payment the president received from a foreign government, from a state government _ whatever benefits he received. That could include financing," said Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, who filed the suit with D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine in June 2017 alleging violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause.
"This is an historic decision," Frosh said. "Those clauses prohibit receipts of gifts from foreign governments. Nobody else has walked close to that line."
The Justice Department said it would continue its defense of the president.
"We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed, a position that was shared by a New York court in a related case," department spokesman Andy Reuss said. "The Justice Department is reviewing the order and determining next steps to continue vigorously defending the President."
Maryland and the District of Columbia argued that Trump and his organization are violating the emoluments clause in connection with the hotel.
They are seeking an injunction prohibiting future violations.
Central to the case is the question of the meaning of the term "emoluments."
Maryland has argued for a broad definition covering "profit," "gain," or "advantage."
Trump's attorneys argued that the clause did not apply to his actions, citing dictionary definitions tying the term to payments made over and above an official's employment salary.
The federal judge said Maryland and Washington "convincingly" made its case for the broader definition.
Trump said before his inauguration that that leadership of the Trump Organization would be turned over to his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, and that profits from foreign governments would be submitted to the U.S. Treasury.
"However, following his inauguration and as of the date of the filing of this action, the president had made no such 'donations' to the U.S. Treasury," the judge wrote.
Since Trump's election, the court said, "a number of foreign governments or their instrumentalities have patronized or have expressed a definite intention to patronize the hotel, some of which have indicated that they are doing so precisely because of the president's association with it."
In March, the judge declined to dismiss the case after the Justice Department argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they could not clearly show how their residents had been harmed by the payments.
Maryland has said its commercial interests _ such as competing hotels _ could be harmed by any advantage the Trump hotel maintains.
