In re Trump - 958 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2020)

Rule:

Given the demanding criteria a petitioner must meet to obtain a writ of mandamus, appellate courts rarely grant mandamus relief, and even more rarely find it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to correct acts within the discretion of the district court. While writs of mandamus to review discretionary decisions of district judges are not proscribed, they should hardly ever issue. Of course, when the petitioner is the President, the court of appeals must also ask, as part of this mandamus inquiry, whether the district court's actions constituted an unwarranted impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties. The special solicitude for a President seeking a writ of mandamus gives recognition to the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties.

Facts:

Respondents, the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland, filed the present action in the District of Maryland against President Donald Trump in his official capacity. Respondents alleged that the President violated the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by accepting prohibited "emoluments" from foreign and domestic governments. The President moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the President’s motion to dismiss with respect to the operations of the Trump Organization outside the District of Columbia, concluding that Respondents lacked standing to pursue those claims. However, the district court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the President's alleged violations relating to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. The President moved for certification to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which the district court declined. Subsequently, the President petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, invoking the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21. The President asked the appellate court either to direct the district court to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or to order the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the President entitled to a writ of mandamus? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court denied the President’s petition, holding that the President of the United States was not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the district court to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1292(b) or, in the alternative, ordering the district court to dismiss the complaint against him because the allegation of legal error in the district court's thorough certification analysis provided no basis to compel certification under § 1292(b) as he did not contend that the district court denied certification for nonlegal reasons or in bad faith.