“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump DOJ sought Supreme Court permission to continue construction of its White House ballroom despite a lower court injunction stopping it
What happened in this case?
In response to the controversial Trump plan to construct a new ballroom at the White House, the National Trust for Historic Preservation obtained a lower court injunction, affirmed by the DC Circuit, to stop the construction as it continues to litigate the legality of the action. Chief Justice Roberts issued a temporary stay of the order last week, and the Court Monday issued a stay that will continue until the case is resolved on the merits that will allow Trump’s construction to continue. All three Trump justices (Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett) voted in favor of an unsigned opinion to grant the stay. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent in National Park Service v National Trust for Historic Preservation at the end of August.
The majority’s opinion maintained that Trump was likely to succeed on the claim that the Trust did not have standing to challenge the project although it did not rule on the legality of the project itself. The stay will remain in place while that issue, and possibly the legality of Trump’s actions, is litigated. This likely gives Trump the time needed to complete the ballroom.
Why did Chief Justice Roberts dissent?
Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the Trust, and in particular executive committee member Alison Hoagland, has standing to sue because of the aesthetic injury she has and will suffer. He also wrote that the record at this point shows that the demolition of the East Wing and the construction project are “likely unlawful.” As Roberts wrote, the White House is “not just any building,” and the majority’s “failure to appreciate as much” results in misconstruing the “plaintiff’s injury” and “allowing the executive’s likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and its authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.” Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett will likely allow Donald Trump to complete his ballroom construction project at the White House, despite its doubtful legality. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.