Timing

   A federal judge in New York rejected a challenge to the president based on the emoluments clause of the Constitution, but noted that the case was not yet "ripe" for adjudication, thus leaving an opening for future challenges.
   The challenge was based on the constitutional ban on elected officials receiving any benefit or emolument of any kind from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
   The president owns or controls many hotels, and Judge George B. Daniels of Southern District Court in Manhattan said the challengers failed to prove that they had suffered from the competition.
   The judge noted that customers could well be patronizing Trump-owned businesses to take advantage of better quality or price, which would not be related to the presidency.
   In addition, he ruled, the emoluments clause of the Constitution is meant to protect Americans from corruption wrought by payments from foreign officials, not from competition between American-owned firms and those controlled by a president.
   Finally, the issue is first one for Congress to decide, and until then, the case is not yet ripe.
   In short, the problem is not yet going away, since the president has numerous businesses, and until it is proven that foreign governments or customers use that as a way to influence presidential decisions, and the president accepts payments from them, there isn't a constitutional problem.
   Yet.