President Trump's continued business dealings have generated plenty of teeth-gnashing about whether the occupant of the White House will be profiting off his new role.
The question is who has the "standing" to do anything about it?
This week a group of legal scholars and former government ethics officials teamed up to file a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Trump's overseas commercial activities violate the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which bars presidents from taking gifts from foreign governments.
The suit faces some significant legal hurdles, among them the question of whether Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the advocacy group behind the lawsuit, actually has the standing to sue the president.
"Standing is a basic doctrine of the federal courts. No one has the right to go into court and get a judgment unless they've been injured by the action they're complaining about, so we don't just have miscellaneous busybodies filing lawsuits," says Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University.
"If your neighbor is hit by a car, you may be outraged. You may think he ought to sue. But you can't sue on his behalf. He's the only one who can sue," McConnell says.
CREW argues that, as a government ethics watchdog, it should be looked at like a business whose main "product" is ethics advocacy and commentary.
"Because of Donald Trump's unprecedented conflicts of interest, the cost to produce that product has gone up. The resources have had to shift away from the business they engage in typically, and that affects them. It affects them directly. It affects the way they spend money," says Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator who is representing CREW.
Gupta says some precedent exists for the argument. In the 1982 Havens Realty case, the Supreme Court ruled that a housing rights group could claim damages because it was forced to put money and resources into opposing discrimination by a private real estate firm.
But McConnell, who believes CREW's argument for standing is something of a stretch, says that case was "quite a different situation."
"That organization was providing actual services to people who were purchasing housing," he says. "They were ushering clients through the process, and when the defendants were discriminating, and hiding the type of discrimination, it actually made it more difficult for them to provide the services that they were providing."
Since the Havens Realty case, numerous public-interest groups have tried to argue that they have standing because laws were being violated, says Jonathan Adler, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University.
"In all these cases, the court has made clear that being a mission-oriented organization is not enough to establish standing. You still have to show something more concrete than alleging a legal violation that touches upon your mission," Adler says.
If CREW doesn't have the legal standing to challenge Trump, who does?
One possibility is Trump's business competitors. For example, a hotel could argue that it's facing unfair competition because its customers are switching to Trump properties in an effort to curry favor with the president. Something like that is actually happening, Gupta says.
"We have been contacted since we filed the lawsuit by all sorts of people who believe they have economic injuries as a result of the streams of foreign payments that go to Donald Trump's businesses, and we are considering very carefully the potential claims that those people have," Gupta says.
The courts could also decide that no one really has the standing to sue the president over his conflicts of interest, and that Congress will ultimately have to decide whether Trump's business dealings are a problem, Adler says.
"The impeachment clause [of the Constitution] specifically mentions bribery as an impeachable offense," Adler says. "So if we believe that the president is violating the Emoluments Clause or is otherwise so enmeshed in conflicts of interest that they are tantamount to bribery or that they prevent him from being able to discharge his responsibilities, the primary mechanism for dealing with that is the impeachment clause.
"That's obviously a severe remedy. That's obviously something that's unlikely when Congress is controlled by the same party. But that is the structure," he says.
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
On Monday, a team of ethics lawyers and legal scholars filed suit claiming that President Trump's many foreign business dealings violate the Constitution.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
They cite the Emoluments Clause, a provision in the Constitution that bars presidents from accepting gifts or money from foreign governments.
GREENE: Of course, one big question courts will have to decide is not actually about the merits of the case here but rather just who has the legal standing to challenge the president in court. Here's NPR's Jim Zarroli.
JIM ZARROLI, BYLINE: It is a fundamental concept in the law. If you want to sue someone successfully, you have to prove first that you've been hurt by them. Michael McConnell is a professor at Stanford Law School.
MICHAEL MCCONNELL: If your neighbor is hit by a car, you may be outraged, you may think he ought to sue, but you can't sue on his behalf. He's the only one who can sue.
ZARROLI: In recent years, the Supreme Court has become a lot stricter about determining whether a plaintiff in a suit has the standing to sue. And so the group now suing Trump, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - or CREW - has to show how it has been damaged by Trump's conflicts. CREW has done this by arguing that it's had to put extra time and resources into publicizing and opposing Trump's actions. One of the lawyers arguing the case, Deepak Gupta, says CREW needs to be looked at like a business whose product is ethics reports and commentary.
DEEPAK GUPTA: Because of Donald Trump's unprecedented conflicts of interest, the cost to produce that product has gone up. The resources had to shift away from the business that they engage in typically, and that affects them.
ZARROLI: Gupta says there's precedent for this argument. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a housing advocacy group could sue a real estate firm because it was consuming its resources by discriminating against tenants. Still, Stanford's Michael McConnell thinks CREW's argument is a stretch.
MCCONNELL: This is not even a close case of standing. An organization doesn't have standing because it chooses to throw resources into an issue. If that were true, anyone would have standing to challenge anything.
ZARROLI: If CREW doesn't have the standing to sue the president over his conflicts of interest, then who does? One possibility is Trump's business competitors. A hotel could argue that it's being hurt because its customers are switching to Trump properties to curry favor with the president. And CREW has already heard from some Trump competitors who say that's happening, Gupta says.
GUPTA: And we are considering very carefully the potential claims that those people have.
ZARROLI: Or the courts could decide that nobody really has the standing to sue the president and that it's ultimately up to Congress to decide if the president's conflicts are a problem. Jonathan Adler, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, says, in that case, the primary mechanism for dealing with the problem is impeachment.
JONATHAN ADLER: It's obviously something that's unlikely when Congress is controlled by the same party, but that is the structure.
ZARROLI: In the meantime, the plaintiffs in this week's lawsuit are hoping to convince the courts they have the standing to challenge the president. Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York.
(SOUNDBITE OF MATT JORGENSEN'S "SPACE, PLANE AND LINE") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.