A federal appeals court has revived D.C. and Maryland’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump, allowing the once-dismissed complaint to move forward.

In the 9 to 6 decision issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Trump’s motion to have the complaint dismissed. The lawsuit has proceeded in fits and starts since it was first brought by attorneys general Karl Racine and Brian Frosh of D.C. and Maryland, respectively, nearly three years ago.

The complaint alleges that the president is violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause by earning money from foreign dignitaries and domestic powers, including those who stay at his D.C. hotel.

The clause says no President “shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” However, no court has definitively outlined the meaning of the word emolument, and the anti-corruption clause had not received much attention until Trump took office without divesting from his sprawling business interests.

In the majority opinion, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “We recognize that the President is no ordinary petitioner, and we accord him great deference as the head of the Executive branch. But Congress and the Supreme Court have severely limited our ability to grant the extraordinary relief the President seeks … in the United States, every person — even the President — has a duty to obey the law.”

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III argued that the case should be thrown out. “The majority is using a wholly novel and nakedly political cause of action to pave the path for a litigative assault upon this and future Presidents and for an ascendant judicial supervisory role over Presidential action,” he wrote.

Representatives for both Racine and Frosh did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.

Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Racine and Frosh did not have standing to sue him in his official role, and said an emolument was defined as a “payment made in connection with a particular employment over and above one’s salary.” Meanwhile, Frosh and Racine defined it more broadly as any “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage.”

The lawsuit appeared done for last July when a the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Virginia sided with Trump, ruling that D.C. and Maryland did not have the standing to bring the case. But in October, the Fourth Circuit court said it would hear the case en banc, meaning the entire court bench, rather than a panel, would hear the case.

The en banc decision clears the path for Racine and Frosh to gain access to Trump’s business records during the discovery process of the lawsuit.

Previously:
D.C. And Maryland’s Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump Gets A Second Chance At Life
Appeals Court Sides With Trump In D.C.’s Emoluments Lawsuit
D.C. Attorney General May Gain Access To Trump’s Business Records, And He Wants To Make Them Public
D.C. And Maryland Are Suing Trump Over ‘Flagrantly’ Violating Constitution