Back in 2008 my colleague and co-author Ilya Shapiro asked whether Hillary Clinton was unconstitutional, as her office may have  violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Today the Supreme Court dismissed that case for lack of jurisdiction, and upheld the lower court.

From today’s orders:

APPEAL — SUMMARY DISPOSITION

09-797 RODEARMEL, DAVID C. V. CLINTON, SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.

The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127–131, and n. 10 (DC 2009), so it did not enter “any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution.” Joint Resolution on Compensation and Other Emoluments Attached to the Office of Secretary of State, §1(b)(3)(A), Pub. L. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, note following 5 U. S. C. §5312. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

So I guess Secretary Clinton is constitutional. But was the first congress unconstitutional?

H/T First Look