The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump permission to keep building his ballroom at the White House, erasing a lower court blockade that had limited his construction.
The justices, in a 5-4 decision, said the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit, likely lacks legal standing to sue. The majority also said the statements by military and intelligence leaders that the ballroom is critical to security worked in favor of letting Mr. Trump continue.
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the court said in an unsigned opinion.
Dissenting were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the three Democratic appointees.
The ruling allows construction while the case develops in lower courts.
Mr. Trump appears determined to outrace the judges, with a 250-person crew working 20 hours a day in two shifts, seven days a week, according to court filings in the case.
Mr. Trump initially defended the project by saying the White House needs a world-class gathering space to welcome foreign leaders and host major conferences and dinners.
But increasingly he’s cast it as a security matter.
He said the ballroom is combined with upgrades, including a “drone-proof” ceiling, blast-proof glass, bomb shelters, missile-resistant columns and “top secret military facilities.”
The majority said the case raised important legal questions that aren’t settled, and so halting construction now would hinder the president.
The main legal question is whether the president can do a major renovation to the White House without getting permission from Congress.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing the dissent, said he thinks that question is settled and “construction is likely unlawful.”
“The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia. Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling ’express authority’ for the Executive’s construction of it,” he wrote.
He dismissed the national security concerns, saying that while below-grade construction — which has been allowed by lower courts — affected security, the early arguments to the court did not make that same claim about above-ground construction.
The ballroom has become a major test of presidential powers — and a prestige project for this president.
Legal briefs filed in the case, with their use of extra adverbs and superlatives, often read like they are taken from Mr. Trump’s social media feed, or even were written by the chief executive himself.
He also devoted portions of his speech at the White House Correspondents Association dinner to defending the project.
Mr. Trump says the $400 million, 90,000-square-foot building is being funded by private donations, which puts it beyond Congress’s spending power.
He had the old East Wing demolished last fall without seeking outside approval.
The National Trust, a private organization, had sued under the reasoning that one of its board members, Alison Hoagland, likes to walk by the White House and her “aesthetic” interest was injured by the tear-down of the old East Wing, and finds the replacement ballroom distasteful.
The court majority on Monday said it had not granted legal standing on that sort of reasoning before.
“To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III,” the justices said.
The majority said if aesthetic objections were enough to grant standing, it would open floodgates because “nearly any government action or project offends someone’s sensibilities.”
Chief Justice Roberts, though, said that was unfair to Ms. Hoagland.
He said the court has, in fact, allowed “mere aesthetic interests” to be sufficient for standing in cases involving environmental policy.
The majority said in those cases, the plaintiffs used a river for swimming or fishing — something beyond just looking at it.
“But the principal way a person enjoys a historic building or object is by looking at it,” retorted the chief justice.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.