The Supreme Court allows Trump’s White House ballroom construction to continue.

cigaretteman

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
3,633
4,266
113
Fu ckin' a-holes:

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed construction to continue on President Trump’s luxury White House ballroom, which has been steadily rising to replace the East Wing the president tore down last fall.

The justices said the preservationists who challenged the construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom did not have legal grounds known as standing to bring their lawsuit because they were not directly harmed by the project, estimated to cost $400 million.

The majority emphasized that its order was not addressing the legality of the project and instead the question of who could sue to try to block it. But in practical terms, the order was a significant setback to the most serious legal challenge to the project, meaning the president seems likely to be able to complete construction.
In an unusual lineup, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal justices disagreed with the majority, with the chief justice writing in a lengthy dissent that the White House is “an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture.”
Monday’s order reversed lower-court rulings that would have halted aboveground construction because the judges found that the administration had exceeded its authority by moving ahead with major changes to the White House campus without congressional approval.
The ballroom project, which includes a secure military bunker underneath, is just one way Mr. Trump has been aggressively remaking Washington during his second term. He has proposed building a 250-foot triumphal arch near Washington’s border with Arlington, Va. His allies have been pressing to inscribe his name on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts even after a judge ordered it removed from the building.
But the ballroom has been particularly personal for Mr. Trump, who has for years said that the White House needed a larger space to host special guests without having to erect a tent on the South Lawn.
The order from the Supreme Court was the second time in less than two weeks that the court weighed in on the project. The first time, on Aug. 21, Chief Justice Roberts issued a one-sentence placeholder known as an administrative stay to buy his colleagues additional time to more fully consider the administration’s request to block the lower-court rulings against the president.
The chief justice handles emergency requests from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and initially acted on his own. He did not provide any reasoning for the initial order, which also allowed construction to continue.
The new order represents the views of the full nine-member court.
The project has grown in scale in recent months as the president and his lawyers have shifted to emphasize the national security imperative of what they now refer to as the military/ballroom complex. It includes a major upgrade to the bunker beneath, built during World War II and known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.
“The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND!” the president posted on social media on Aug. 21.
Image

Crews continued their work on the White House ballroom on Aug. 19.Credit...Andrew Leyden for The New York Times
The challenge to the project was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit chartered by Congress to guard public buildings. The trust argued that a longtime member, Alison K. Hoagland, a District of Columbia resident and architectural historian, had been personally and professionally harmed by the destruction of one of the most prominent public buildings in the United States, which she has routinely walked past and reflected on in her work.
In a court filing, the preservationists said the president’s actions violated the Constitution and federal laws, which gave Congress the power to decide which structures can be built on federal property in Washington. They told the justices that the administration was essentially trying to outrun the courts by accelerating construction of the ballroom.
“Efforts to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded” with an order from the court that would allow the administration to “complete a ballroom they lacked any authority to commence in the first place,” wrote the trust’s lawyers, led by Thaddeus A. Heuer.
The trust suggested that the justices could put the aboveground construction on hold and schedule quick oral arguments in October or November to review the case in-depth, through their traditional process rather than ruling immediately as a temporary emergency.
In March, Judge Richard J. Leon, who sits on the District Court in Washington, initially halted construction of the ballroom and rejected the administration’s claims. But he allowed work on the project to continue temporarily to allow for an appeal.
“While I take seriously the government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the president himself, the existence of a ‘large hole’ beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the president’s own making!” the judge wrote.
In August, the appeals court in Washington ruled 2 to 1 against the president in a lengthy opinion that said Congress has control over federal property and had not ceded its authority to the president to dramatically redesign the “People’s House” to “fit a particular president’s desires.”
The Trump administration quickly asked the Supreme Court to intervene, telling the justices that it was essentially too late to stop the project and that doing so would put the president and his family at risk. A team of 250 workers has pushed ahead with construction 20 hours a day, seven days a week, and it is 65 percent complete, according to the government’s court filings.
Mr. Trump had touted that the luxury space would be funded by private donations, but in June the administration transferred about $350 million in taxpayer money from the Secret Service for “security enhancements” to the ballroom and bunker.
The Secret Service has said that it plans to spend $220 million to “harden” the partially built ballroom against attack, including the installation of bulletproof glass, drone detection technology, chemical and other threat filters and detectors. The taxpayer-funded upgrades also include a $180 million visitor screening facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/08/31/us/trump-news#section-834653794
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
35,426
4,699
113
Fu ckin' a-holes:

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed construction to continue on President Trump’s luxury White House ballroom, which has been steadily rising to replace the East Wing the president tore down last fall.

The justices said the preservationists who challenged the construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom did not have legal grounds known as standing to bring their lawsuit because they were not directly harmed by the project, estimated to cost $400 million.

The majority emphasized that its order was not addressing the legality of the project and instead the question of who could sue to try to block it. But in practical terms, the order was a significant setback to the most serious legal challenge to the project, meaning the president seems likely to be able to complete construction.
In an unusual lineup, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal justices disagreed with the majority, with the chief justice writing in a lengthy dissent that the White House is “an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture.”
Monday’s order reversed lower-court rulings that would have halted aboveground construction because the judges found that the administration had exceeded its authority by moving ahead with major changes to the White House campus without congressional approval.
The ballroom project, which includes a secure military bunker underneath, is just one way Mr. Trump has been aggressively remaking Washington during his second term. He has proposed building a 250-foot triumphal arch near Washington’s border with Arlington, Va. His allies have been pressing to inscribe his name on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts even after a judge ordered it removed from the building.
But the ballroom has been particularly personal for Mr. Trump, who has for years said that the White House needed a larger space to host special guests without having to erect a tent on the South Lawn.
The order from the Supreme Court was the second time in less than two weeks that the court weighed in on the project. The first time, on Aug. 21, Chief Justice Roberts issued a one-sentence placeholder known as an administrative stay to buy his colleagues additional time to more fully consider the administration’s request to block the lower-court rulings against the president.
The chief justice handles emergency requests from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and initially acted on his own. He did not provide any reasoning for the initial order, which also allowed construction to continue.
The new order represents the views of the full nine-member court.
The project has grown in scale in recent months as the president and his lawyers have shifted to emphasize the national security imperative of what they now refer to as the military/ballroom complex. It includes a major upgrade to the bunker beneath, built during World War II and known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.
“The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND!” the president posted on social media on Aug. 21.
Image

Crews continued their work on the White House ballroom on Aug. 19.Credit...Andrew Leyden for The New York Times
The challenge to the project was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit chartered by Congress to guard public buildings. The trust argued that a longtime member, Alison K. Hoagland, a District of Columbia resident and architectural historian, had been personally and professionally harmed by the destruction of one of the most prominent public buildings in the United States, which she has routinely walked past and reflected on in her work.
In a court filing, the preservationists said the president’s actions violated the Constitution and federal laws, which gave Congress the power to decide which structures can be built on federal property in Washington. They told the justices that the administration was essentially trying to outrun the courts by accelerating construction of the ballroom.
“Efforts to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded” with an order from the court that would allow the administration to “complete a ballroom they lacked any authority to commence in the first place,” wrote the trust’s lawyers, led by Thaddeus A. Heuer.
The trust suggested that the justices could put the aboveground construction on hold and schedule quick oral arguments in October or November to review the case in-depth, through their traditional process rather than ruling immediately as a temporary emergency.
In March, Judge Richard J. Leon, who sits on the District Court in Washington, initially halted construction of the ballroom and rejected the administration’s claims. But he allowed work on the project to continue temporarily to allow for an appeal.
“While I take seriously the government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the president himself, the existence of a ‘large hole’ beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the president’s own making!” the judge wrote.
In August, the appeals court in Washington ruled 2 to 1 against the president in a lengthy opinion that said Congress has control over federal property and had not ceded its authority to the president to dramatically redesign the “People’s House” to “fit a particular president’s desires.”
The Trump administration quickly asked the Supreme Court to intervene, telling the justices that it was essentially too late to stop the project and that doing so would put the president and his family at risk. A team of 250 workers has pushed ahead with construction 20 hours a day, seven days a week, and it is 65 percent complete, according to the government’s court filings.
Mr. Trump had touted that the luxury space would be funded by private donations, but in June the administration transferred about $350 million in taxpayer money from the Secret Service for “security enhancements” to the ballroom and bunker.
The Secret Service has said that it plans to spend $220 million to “harden” the partially built ballroom against attack, including the installation of bulletproof glass, drone detection technology, chemical and other threat filters and detectors. The taxpayer-funded upgrades also include a $180 million visitor screening facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/08/31/us/trump-news#section-834653794
The abuse of "standing" by this Court to avoid doing the obviously right, obviously just, and obviously constitutional thing is unconscionable.
 

What Would Jesus Do?

All-Conference
Nov 28, 2010
35,426
4,699
113
Next Dem president simply needs to rule it's structurally unsound, which is likely is, and simply knock it all down over a week.
Nah, that's a waste of money. They should just rename it.

The Hillary Clinton Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Kamala Harris Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Michelle Obama Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The AOC Ballroom.

Trump might not survive the tantrum he would predictably throw.
 

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,300
3,337
113
1. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, pretty sure the private funding does nothing to correct the substantive lack of authority to do this. The chief explains that pretty well. This is substantively illegal on the merits.
2. As to standing:
A. I know some always want their oompah-loompahs NOW, but it is a necessity and rightfully so.
B. I’m first a little surprised that it seems as there’s not something “organic” in the national trust’s congressional charter documents that give it unique interests conferring standing aside from its members. Or at least nothing anybody seemed to want to analyze.
c. Personally, if I were starting from square one, I’m not sure that I’d recognize aesthetic interests as sufficient to confer standing. But the court has, to some extent, in the past, so it exists. But I am on board with construing that narrowly given the “concrete and particularized” requirement for standing.
d. I actually think this case illustrates the problems well. The old east wing is gone. Kaput. Hoagland may well be the best ******* preservation architect in American history, but it comes down to little more than her personal sensibilities that she doesn’t like the height and mass. What if the second best preservation architect wanted to go back to the very beginning (pre tr) and his sensibilities preferred nothing there at all?Ultimately, the point is her sensibilities may be offended unless she gets exactly what she wants, whatever that might be. And that’s where specific injury and redressability start to merge. Say what you will about trumps lack of authority (and there’s a lot to say here), but I just don’t see her sensibility providing much more of a basis for a courts constitutional jurisdiction
3. While I’m of mixed feelings on the ultimate outcome here (like standing but not so much lack of authority), I have to confess I’m always a little happy to see preservation architects take it on the chin. Perhaps it’s a function of having lived in a historic district where one tyrannically lorded over the neighborhood and began every paragraph out of her mouth with “as a preservation architect…”
 

Huey Grey 2

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
5,376
17,461
113
Nah, that's a waste of money. They should just rename it.

The Hillary Clinton Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Kamala Harris Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Michelle Obama Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The AOC Ballroom.

Trump might not survive the tantrum he would predictably throw.
We won't have a choice but to raze it. This thing will be built so bad it will be useless to use. I have zero confidence in any contractors Trump hires.
 

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
10,932
14,441
113
We won't have a choice but to raze it. This thing will be built so bad it will be useless to use. I have zero confidence in any contractors Trump hires.
lol trump made a career out of constructing world class buildings. I doubt an unemployed nobody like you is getting an invite to the Charlie Kirk ballroom anyways so you really don’t need to worry about it regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting

tigres88

All-American
Aug 7, 2022
3,222
8,443
113
lol trump made a career out of constructing world class buildings. I doubt an unemployed nobody like you is getting an invite to the Charlie Kirk ballroom anyways so you really don’t need to worry about it regardless.
Your continual crashout because the ideology you've built your tiny lil troll identity on crumbling is embarassing
 

LafayetteBear

Heisman
Nov 30, 2009
34,869
10,357
113
lol you clowns should campaign on that. The normies will love it 😂is there anything you people don’t cry about?
Would it "make your head explode" if the next President did that (i.e., tore down Cheeto's ginormous, gold-plated ballroom)? That alone would make me inclined to vote for him (or her). 🐘 🤡 :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

pjhawk

All-American
Oct 13, 2001
1,719
5,005
113
Nah, that's a waste of money. They should just rename it.

The Hillary Clinton Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Kamala Harris Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The Michelle Obama Ballroom.

...or maybe...

The AOC Ballroom.

Trump might not survive the tantrum he would predictably throw.
NO, it needs to be destroyed. All the monuments to this fascist administration and President need to be knocked down.

It's more expensive to the country long term to leave it standing, this lawless President can't be allowed to get away with this.

Pledging to start tearing down all of Trump's monuments to himself on 1/21/2029 is a candidate requirement for my support in the Democratic primaries.
 

LafayetteBear

Heisman
Nov 30, 2009
34,869
10,357
113
1. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, pretty sure the private funding does nothing to correct the substantive lack of authority to do this. The chief explains that pretty well. This is substantively illegal on the merits.
2. As to standing:
A. I know some always want their oompah-loompahs NOW, but it is a necessity and rightfully so.
B. I’m first a little surprised that it seems as there’s not something “organic” in the national trust’s congressional charter documents that give it unique interests conferring standing aside from its members. Or at least nothing anybody seemed to want to analyze.
c. Personally, if I were starting from square one, I’m not sure that I’d recognize aesthetic interests as sufficient to confer standing. But the court has, to some extent, in the past, so it exists. But I am on board with construing that narrowly given the “concrete and particularized” requirement for standing.
d. I actually think this case illustrates the problems well. The old east wing is gone. Kaput. Hoagland may well be the best ******* preservation architect in American history, but it comes down to little more than her personal sensibilities that she doesn’t like the height and mass. What if the second best preservation architect wanted to go back to the very beginning (pre tr) and his sensibilities preferred nothing there at all?Ultimately, the point is her sensibilities may be offended unless she gets exactly what she wants, whatever that might be. And that’s where specific injury and redressability start to merge. Say what you will about trumps lack of authority (and there’s a lot to say here), but I just don’t see her sensibility providing much more of a basis for a courts constitutional jurisdiction
3. While I’m of mixed feelings on the ultimate outcome here (like standing but not so much lack of authority), I have to confess I’m always a little happy to see preservation architects take it on the chin. Perhaps it’s a function of having lived in a historic district where one tyrannically lorded over the neighborhood and began every paragraph out of her mouth with “as a preservation architect…”
The current roster of Supreme Court justices is so servile to Trump that they have kowtowed to him on this ballroom fiasco even though he clearly does not have unilateral authority to do what he has done. But rather than recognizing the obvious and vindicating the more compelling principle (Trump's lack of authority), they have hidden behind a technicality (a preservationist's lack of standing) in order to do Trump's bidding.

Seems to me that ultimate decision-making authority for modifications or additions to the White House should rest with the U.S. Congress. I don't know if that is codified anywhere, but it should be. Someone has to have authority to make the call, and it clearly should not be a president acting unilaterally. Seems to me that any single member of Congress should have standing to object to (and legal authority to file suit to enjoin) something like this. If Trump is allowed to build this monstrosity of a ballroom, I honestly DO hope it is torn down, via unilateral action, by the next Democratic president (i.e., the next president).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
10,932
14,441
113
Your continual crashout because the ideology you've built your tiny lil troll identity on crumbling is embarassing
I’m not the one pissing my pants over lake names and a glorious new ballroom named after Charlie Kirk lol stop projecting
Would it "make your head explode" if the next President did that (i.e., tore down Cheeto's ginormous, gold-plated ballroom)? That alone would make me inclined to vote for him (or her). 🐘 🤡 :cool:
Why would Vance do that? Democrats voting for destruction surprises nobody btw. Leftists don’t know how to build high value thongs, only destroy them.
 

pjhawk

All-American
Oct 13, 2001
1,719
5,005
113
lol you clowns should campaign on that. The normies will love it 😂is there anything you people don’t cry about?
One of my litmus tests for dem candidates in 28 is this issue.

You've lost the thread (if you ever had it) if you think this is a loser issue for Dems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

LafayetteBear

Heisman
Nov 30, 2009
34,869
10,357
113
We won't have a choice but to raze it. This thing will be built so bad it will be useless to use. I have zero confidence in any contractors Trump hires.
Maybe he'll hire the dude who did such a bang up job on the Reflecting Pool. (The photo below was taken on Saturday.)

 

tigres88

All-American
Aug 7, 2022
3,222
8,443
113
I’m not the one pissing my pants over lake names and a glorious new ballroom named after Charlie Kirk lol stop projecting

Why would Vance do that? Democrats voting for destruction surprises nobody btw. Leftists don’t know how to build high value thongs, only destroy them.
lol are you ok? Post another 4chan meme, we're all dying to see more of your 3rd grade humor
 

Scrubby

Heisman
Jul 2, 2025
10,932
14,441
113
One of my litmus tests for dem candidates in 28 is this issue.

You've lost the thread (if you ever had it) if you think this is a loser issue for Dems.
I get that it’s important to you, just like allowing dudes into girls bathrooms and ending the deportations of criminal illegal aliens. I already told you to guys to campaign on all of these things. You’ll lose worse than Kamala managed to do 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting

Riveting

All-Conference
Aug 24, 2020
6,903
4,045
113
Next Dem president simply needs to rule it's structurally unsound, which is likely is, and simply knock it all down over a week.
More outstanding critical thinking on your part.

You are really on a roll after saying we've run low on missiles from bombing desert and wasteland areas of Iran.

Keep up the great critical thinking. You make libs proud.
 

Riveting

All-Conference
Aug 24, 2020
6,903
4,045
113
NO, it needs to be destroyed. All the monuments to this fascist administration and President need to be knocked down.

It's more expensive to the country long term to leave it standing, this lawless President can't be allowed to get away with this.

Pledging to start tearing down all of Trump's monuments to himself on 1/21/2029 is a candidate requirement for my support in the Democratic primaries.
You are really playing hardball with your vote, pajamas.
 

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,300
3,337
113
The current roster of Supreme Court justices is so servile to Trump that they have kowtowed to him on this ballroom fiasco even though he clearly does not have unilateral authority to do what he has done. But rather than recognizing the obvious and vindicating the more compelling principle (Trump's lack of authority), they have hidden behind a technicality (a preservationist's lack of standing) in order to do Trump's bidding.

Seems to me that ultimate decision-making authority for modifications or additions to the White House should rest with the U.S. Congress. I don't know if that is codified anywhere, but it should be. Someone has to have authority to make the call, and it clearly should not be a president acting unilaterally. Seems to me that any single member of Congress should have standing to object to (and legal authority to file suit to enjoin) something like this. If Trump is allowed to build this monstrosity of a ballroom, I honestly DO hope it is torn down, via unilateral action, by the next Democratic president (i.e., the next president).
I agree on the merits. Robert’s analysis is spot on there.

But you do have to have standing to invoke the federal courts. You don’t just get your oompah loompah now.thats nothing new.

as to congressional standing, I know it can exist (sometimes) but I dont think that was this case’s plaintiff at the very least. And as noted, a little surprised the trust charter doesn’t provide some better argument than the one that was advanced.

Edit: for background


bottom line re legislative standing seems to be it is not an easy path,
 
Last edited:

LafayetteBear

Heisman
Nov 30, 2009
34,869
10,357
113
I agree on the merits. Robert’s analysis is spot on there.

But you do have to have standing to invoke the federal courts. You don’t just get your oompah loompah now.thats nothing new.

as to congressional standing, I know it can exist (sometimes) but I dont think that was this case’s plaintiff at the very least. And as noted, a little surprised the trust charter doesn’t provide some better argument than the one that was advanced.

Edit: for background


bottom line re legislative standing seems to be it is not an easy path,
What about the State of Missouri getting ITS "oompah loompah" (see Post No. 27, above)? Shouldn't there be some consistency in applying the standing requirement? More importantly, the interest in restraining a single dude from unilaterally remodeling our national's capital is important enough, IMHO, to stretch a little on the standing requirement. This decision has a distinctly rank odeur: of cringing toadyism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,300
3,337
113
What about the State of Missouri getting ITS "oompah loompah" (see Post No. 27, above)? Shouldn't there be some consistency in applying the standing requirement? More importantly, the interest in restraining a single dude from unilaterally remodeling our national's capital is important enough, IMHO, to stretch a little on the standing requirement. This decision has a distinctly rank odeur: of cringing toadyism.
If you're talking about the student loan case, I don't think they're particularly analogous. There was a very real economic injury to a Missouri state entity there (lost processing fees), and notably, the court did not find standing for the other states in that case who didn't have any similar economic injuries. Quibble if you will about the instrumentality logic and extension from the state entity to the state itself, but it's hardly specious, and either way, this is pretty different from the ballroom case. But if you were pushing that as the controlling, I think you'd need an economic injury to the national trust or at least to Dr. Hoagland.

Also, btw, the Court is perfectly capable of not recognizing generalized state standing for missouri based on generalized grievances, as we saw in the Covid social media censorship cases, where it reversed the fifth circuit's finding of standing.

We just disagree about whether, even in odious situations like this, we should just ignore standing.
 
Last edited:

baltimorened

All-American
May 29, 2001
8,160
6,124
113
Would it "make your head explode" if the next President did that (i.e., tore down Cheeto's ginormous, gold-plated ballroom)? That alone would make me inclined to vote for him (or her). 🐘 🤡 :cool:
interestingly, aren't you somewhat advocating for exactly the thing you and others are complaining about? While we all, or most of us, agree that Trump should have obtained Congressional approval before his construction, the next president would have to get Congressional approval to tear it down...
 

baltimorened

All-American
May 29, 2001
8,160
6,124
113
The current roster of Supreme Court justices is so servile to Trump that they have kowtowed to him on this ballroom fiasco even though he clearly does not have unilateral authority to do what he has done. But rather than recognizing the obvious and vindicating the more compelling principle (Trump's lack of authority), they have hidden behind a technicality (a preservationist's lack of standing) in order to do Trump's bidding.

Seems to me that ultimate decision-making authority for modifications or additions to the White House should rest with the U.S. Congress. I don't know if that is codified anywhere, but it should be. Someone has to have authority to make the call, and it clearly should not be a president acting unilaterally. Seems to me that any single member of Congress should have standing to object to (and legal authority to file suit to enjoin) something like this. If Trump is allowed to build this monstrosity of a ballroom, I honestly DO hope it is torn down, via unilateral action, by the next Democratic president (i.e., the next president).
so for the legally uninformed among us...is it part of the law that someone suing must have standing? If that's the case than no one has a complaint if the plaintiff in this case didn't have standing....and was thrown out.

We all agree that Trump didn't have the authority and that authority rests with Congress. So, why didn't Congress stop the construction in it's earliest stage?And while your statement about "any single member of Congress" having standing might be 100% accurate that, at least according to a Google search, no member of the House or Senate has filed a lawsuit to stop it, and more interestingly, also from google search, there has not been a standalone bill filed in either house or Senate to stop it.

So what that might tell us is that while on the surface our elected officials in the House and Senate might express outrage to mollify their base, they have no interest in stopping it....just a thought.
 

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,300
3,337
113
so for the legally uninformed among us...is it part of the law that someone suing must have standing? If that's the case than no one has a complaint if the plaintiff in this case didn't have standing....and was thrown out.

We all agree that Trump didn't have the authority and that authority rests with Congress. So, why didn't Congress stop the construction in it's earliest stage?And while your statement about "any single member of Congress" having standing might be 100% accurate that, at least according to a Google search, no member of the House or Senate has filed a lawsuit to stop it, and more interestingly, also from google search, there has not been a standalone bill filed in either house or Senate to stop it.

So what that might tell us is that while on the surface our elected officials in the House and Senate might express outrage to mollify their base, they have no interest in stopping it....just a thought.
Yes, standing is a constitutional jurisdictional requirement for any case to be brought in federal courts, stemming from the constitutional language referencing 'cases and controversies". No standing, no jurisdiction. No jurisdiction, no assessment of the merits, and no remedy. The idea is that the decisions of the political branches have to be executable unless they actually harm someone, rather than simply someone not liking them. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done, and the whole purpose of the constitution of 1787 was to create a government with sufficient 'energy' to act.

Is there a fair argument about whether standing existed here? Absolutely. There is a line of cases (high water mark probably in the 70s with US v SCRAP) where esoteric interests like "I like to walk in the national parks and this particular action will interfere with my enjoyment of said parks" were sufficient. IMO those were loosey-goosey, and the opinion yesterday is consistent with a continuing trend toward eroding/tightening that up. (The magic words are "concrete and particularized injury" which is "causally related to the challenged conduct" and "redressable" by a court. IMO the first and third of these are implicated here.)

The congressional standing question is a little tougher. There are limited situations where a house can have standing if an action interferes with its institutional prerogatives (say, hypothetically, an executive installed a cabinet head without senate confirmation), though that "usually" doesn't extend to individual members. (See the link in my post above.) The rationale underlying that is essentially that the congress has political tools at its disposal to rein in the executive, most notably the power of appropriations but up to and including impeachment, and that those are a "better" (or at least first) avenue for addressing legislature-executive grievances rather than enabling an individual rep (perhaps on the losing side of a vote) to challenge things by running to court. The problem, as you note, is that we currently have a congress that, for the first time that I can ever recall, seems to be completely uninterested in defending its own prerogatives using the tools available to it, and on top of that, the threat of the power of the purse may not be that helpful here because a good chunk of this has been privately funded.

Now there is indeed an understandable frustration in the fact that "technicalities" like standing can make a reconstruction like this something of a fait accompli, so I get why people ask why we can't just ignore or lighten up on standing. In thinking about where that line of thinking comes from, i think it's three things. First, the referenced understandable frustration. Second, the "mystery" of legal process to nonlawyers - candidly, process and the rules of evidence are about the only unique knowledge that actually make a lawyer a lawyer, as everything else is simple substantive learning. But third, I think there's also an element of modern concepts of "equity". Courts do have equitable remedy powers under the constitution, and injunctions are a part of those powers. But it wasn't until the last half of the 20th century when those equitable powers began to be interpreted to "trump" legal powers (no pun intended) or to enable courts to simply "do justice" (as it saw justice) through injunctions regardless of whether a legal process might otherwise be available to an appropriate party. Before that, equitable powers were understood as something more limited -- a "gap filler" to take into account that the law couldn't address every conceivable circumstance and where there otherwise was no legal process or remedy available. Again, I think this is something we're seeing reined in a bit in the trendline, as you see in situations like the universal injunction decision. Either way, I am not aware of any case where equitable powers were invoked to simply ignore standing, and rightfully so, as standing is jurisdictional, and without jurisdiction there are neither legal nor equitable powers that attach to a court.
 
Last edited:

Moogy

All-American
Jul 28, 2017
7,128
5,114
113
A. I know some always want their oompah-loompahs NOW, but it is a necessity and rightfully so.

Interestingly, the man doing the bad things is the one who wants his Oompa-Loompa NOW (in the form of a ballroom), and other folks are trying to stop him from being a spoiled brat ... not for their own benefit, like was the case with Veruca Salt ... but for the public good.
Find another reference that makes sense.
 
Tiger Illustrated

Latest

  1. 01 Tiger Illustrated What the Clemson - LSU game may come down to
  2. 02 Tiger Illustrated TUESDAY NEWS CONFERENCE: Swinney names Vizzina QB starter, Lane Kiffin, LSU - NFL additions, team info & more
  3. 03 Tiger Illustrated Talking season is in its final hours in Clemson
  4. 04 Tiger Illustrated VIDEO: Tom Allen, Will Heldt, Vizzina and Olsen Patt-Henry
  5. 05 On3 What happens next for LSU, the SEC and former NFL players trying to play in college?