How do scholars interpret remedies for alleged Emoluments Clause violations by a sitting president?

1. Impeachment as the canonical political remedy

A mainstream scholarly and advocacy position treats impeachment and Senate removal as the constitutionally explicit political remedy for “egregious” Emoluments Clause violations, rooted in the Framers’ worry about foreign influence and articulated in Federalist-era commentary and modern analyses that urge use of impeachment when corruption rises to a removal-worthy level ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Congress can legislate prophylactic and remedial mechanisms

Experts repeatedly recommend congressional action to convert the constitutional text’s ambiguity into enforceable rules—models include statutory definitions of “emolument,” reporting and disclosure obligations, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive remedies, reflecting proposals from think tanks and draft enforcement acts that would give courts and executive offices concrete authority to act ^{[2] [6] [7]}.

3. Civil litigation—injunctions and disgorgement—meant to fill gaps

Scholarly briefs and policy papers underscore that private plaintiffs and states have sought injunctive relief barring future receipts and disgorgement of past emoluments; academics treat these civil remedies as logical, but note they run into acute procedural problems—standing doctrines and justiciability—that have inhibited definitive federal-court review ^{[7] [3] [6]}.

4. Judicial uncertainty: standing, scope, and mootness block bright-line rules

Lower courts began to wrestle with who may sue, whether the Clause reaches the president, and what counts as an “emolument,” but the Supreme Court’s post-presidential dismissal and other procedural rulings left the merits unresolved—leaving scholars to rely on persuasive lower-court reasoning rather than binding precedent ^{[3] [8] [9]}.

5. Criminal enforcement: doctrinal debate and practical reticence

Some commentators propose criminal penalties for statutory emoluments violations, but scholars note doctrinal hurdles: the Constitution does not specify criminal remedies for the Clauses, DOJ practice historically resists indicting a sitting president, and proposals instead favor civil enforcement and administrative oversight to avoid constitutional conflict ^{[6] [7] [2]}.

6. Institutional enforcement via executive offices and specialized statutes

Proposals in the scholarly literature favor empowering the Office of Government Ethics, an Office of the Special Counsel, or the DOJ’s civil divisions to investigate and seek injunctions and disgorgement, reflecting an effort to create routine enforcement channels that do not rely solely on politically fraught impeachment votes or unpredictable private litigation ^{[6] [7]}.

7. Competing views and implicit agendas in the scholarship

Arguments emphasizing impeachment or litigation often come from advocates prioritizing robust anti-corruption enforcement, while voices urging legislative fixes stress institutional stability and predictability; critics warn that aggressive private suits risk politicizing the courts, and proponents counter that congressional inaction reflects political capture—an implicit agenda tension that runs through Brennan Center, Brookings, Just Security, and bar-advocacy pieces ^{[2] [10] [7]}.

8. Bottom line: plural remedies, procedural chokepoints, and a congressional role

The scholarly consensus is pragmatic: multiple remedies exist in theory—impeachment, legislation creating disgorgement and injunction powers, and civil suits—but procedural chokepoints (standing, justiciability, and DOJ policy) and the Supreme Court’s avoidance of merits leave enforcement largely incomplete; thus many scholars converge on Congress as the most reliable vehicle to supply clear standards and remedial machinery ^{[3] [2] [5]}.