#trump-appointees

1 entry with this tag

Constitutional Violations

The Full Supreme Court, 5-4, Let Trump Keep Building His White House Ballroom Indefinitely — but Ducked the Actual Question of Whether He Can Demolish the People's House Without Congress, Ruling Only That the Preservation Group Suing Him Probably Lacks Standing; in a Striking Split, Chief Justice Roberts Joined the Three Liberals in Dissent, Writing That the Construction Is "Likely Unlawful"

On August 31, 2026, the full Supreme Court — going beyond Chief Justice Roberts's individual interim stay ten days earlier — ruled 5-4 that Trump may continue building his White House ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing, indefinitely, while litigation continues. But the Court did not decide the question the case actually raises: whether a president can tear down and rebuild part of the White House without congressional approval. Instead, the unsigned majority ducked the merits on a technicality, holding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks legal standing to sue at all. The lineup was unusual and revealing. The five justices in the majority were all conservatives, including Trump's three appointees. Chief Justice John Roberts — who had granted the temporary stay on August 21 — crossed over to join the Court's three liberals in dissent, writing that construction has now "proceeded for the better part of a year" and is "likely unlawful." That is the Chief Justice of the United States saying, on the record, that the president is probably breaking the law, and that five of his colleagues just cleared the way for him to finish doing it. The ballroom will be built. Whether he had the power to build it is a question the Court arranged never to have to answer.