## Facts

- The District of Columbia and Maryland sued the President in his official capacity, alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses based on alleged benefits received through patronage of Trump-owned businesses, including a hotel in Washington, D.C.
- The plaintiffs asserted harm to proprietary interests (competition for government and diplomatic business) and sovereign interests (enforcement of anti-corruption policies).
- The district court denied substantial portions of the President’s motion to dismiss and declined to certify its orders for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The President petitioned the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling § 1292(b) certification or, alternatively, dismissal of the complaint.
- A panel granted mandamus and directed dismissal for lack of standing; the Fourth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel decision, and considered only whether mandamus relief was available.

## Issues

1. Whether the President established a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus compelling the district court to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
2. Whether the President established a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus directing dismissal of the complaint based on threshold defenses such as standing and separation-of-powers concerns.
3. Whether the district court’s rulings amounted to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion warranting extraordinary relief.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit (en banc) denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held the President did not show a clear and indisputable right to an order requiring § 1292(b) certification.
- The court held the President did not show a clear and indisputable right to dismissal via mandamus, and it declined to use mandamus as a vehicle to decide unsettled merits and justiciability questions.
- The district court’s orders remained in effect, and the case could proceed subject to ordinary appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and is not a substitute for appeal.
- A petitioner must show (1) no other adequate means to obtain relief, (2) a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and (3) that issuance is appropriate in the court’s discretion.
- Section 1292(b) certification is discretionary with the district court; mandamus generally cannot compel discretionary certification absent a clear abuse or usurpation of power.
- Where controlling precedent does not clearly foreclose the district court’s approach and the underlying questions are contested or unsettled, a petitioner cannot satisfy the “clear and indisputable” requirement for mandamus.
- The availability of later review (including appeal after final judgment and ordinary interlocutory mechanisms if certified) weighs against mandamus, even when the petitioner is the President.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fourth Circuit refused to intervene through mandamus to force interlocutory review or dismissal, holding that the stringent requirements for extraordinary relief were not met and leaving the litigation to proceed through normal trial and appellate processes without resolving the Emoluments Clause merits.


In re Trump, 958 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc)