美最高法院裁定特朗普白宫宴会厅诉讼原告无资格

[music] This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso from Bloomberg Radio. One thing I know how to do is build. And so we put a brand new uh face on the front of the White House on the ground, the cars will pull up and this is what should have as opposed to the asphalt which was literally they had potholes in it. President Trump has spent much of his second presidential term trying to leave his mark on the White House complex and throughout DC.

And the White House ballroom has been the centerpiece of that campaign.

I think it'll be the finest ballroom of its kind anywhere in the world. On Monday, in a 5 to4 vote, the Supreme Court cleared the way for construction to continue with a procedural ruling over the dissents of the Chief Justice and the court's three liberals. Will that decision present a new higher hurdle for the legal challenges to Trump's other projects like the construction of a 250 foot arch, painting the granite exterior of the 19th century Eisenhower Executive Office building, renovating the Kennedy Center, and building a championship level golf course near the Jefferson Memorial.

My guest is Tracy Fight Love, founder and executive director of Lawyers for Good Government. Tracy, so the majority on the Supreme Court found that the historic preservation group that sued did not have standing. Tell us more about that.

So basically the court did not rule that President Trump has the authority to build the ballroom. What they did rule is that the particular plaintiffs that initiated this lawsuit are not allowed to challenge it. When you say someone doesn't have the standing, it means they don't have the legal right to challenge a particular action. It does not mean the action that they're challenging was legal. Do you think that the Supreme Court often uses standing as sort of an offramp that allows it to avoid making a decision on the merits until it's too late?

Yes. Yes, I do think that. And the reason I think that is because there have been too many instances over the years when the court seems to find that someone does have standing if it relates to an issue that they want to see decided in a particular way and someone else doesn't have standing because they don't want to get to the merits of a particular issue. That distinction really really matters. I mean, when you look at the decision, the only four justices who addressed the legality of the actual ballroom project all concluded that it was likely unlawful.

That includes Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that Congress has not expressly authorized this construction. So, it does seem in this instance that possibly standing was an easy out for them.

It's not a typical case where someone is injured and obviously has standing. Do you think it's a harder case to make outstanding here than usual?

Yeah, this was not clear-cut in terms of the standing question. The real issue is when you look at the overarching pattern of decisions about standing. For example, in this case, when they concluded that the National Trust lacked standing, they said it was because the aesthetic or historical injuries that the plaintiffs were asserting were not sufficiently concrete or particularized. But there is other precedent, Supreme Court precedent that has in some instances recognized aesthetic injuries as being sufficient for a standing.

For instance, in environmental and conservation cases when plaintiffs actually use or observe the place or resource that's being affected. So, it was a close question and I think because it could be perceived as close, it gave them the room to maneuver that they wanted in order to not stop the ballroom construction.

I mean, we don't often see the chief justice in descent with the three liberals. How surprising is that? Yeah, I mean it's I'll admit I'm not often surprised anymore at all about what these Supreme Court justices do, but I think it does speak to the fact that this is not a partisan question. The issue of standing was not decided along the basis of who appointed which justice. Right? That means that this issue may have even been closer than the court wants to admit.

So, I think it's interesting that Justice Roberts actually agreed that the substantive question, the actual question of whether that ballroom was legally being constructed was probably going to be answered in the negative.

It was a pretty strong disscent and he said that the majority's order is no victory for the separation of powers. The court's conservatives have given in to Trump on so many issues, especially on the emergency docket. Do you think he's suddenly realizing that there's a separation of powers problem arising from these decisions?

I hope he's realizing it. I don't know if it's sudden or if this is something that he's been willing to accept up until a certain point, but this is fundamentally a story about separation of powers and the rule of law. We can't allow the rule of law to be act first, ask permission later. Standing matters obviously, but if these procedural barriers are repeatedly preventing anyone from challenging potentially unlawful executive action, then the question is who can actually hold the president accountable?

And are the checks and balances that the constitution meant to set out really in existence now in a meaningful way? The administration has been doing this over and over again in different areas. You know, deporting people before things can get into court, cutting off funding before things can get into court. And you know, the Supreme Court except in a couple of instances, tariffs and birthright citizenship has allowed the president to do this.

That's correct. This court has shown a remarkable unwillingness to hold the executive branch accountable to the constitutional limits that it is meant to operate within. I'm running out of words to describe how dangerous it is to be in a situation where the actions of the executive branch are not being effectively checked or challenged by either of the other two branches. But that is the situation we have found ourselves in.

Obviously the the administration is making an argument that the president has the authority to build this. But I mean is there any real substantive legal authority that contradicts what the courts below have said which is that a project like the ballroom needs congressional approval. Basically, do the plaintiffs have a really strong argument about Congress's role here?

Yes. I mean, the the circuit court that ruled on this issue expressly said that Congress has constitutional authority over federal property and that it was a problem that Congress had not authorized this project. And the Supreme Court did not find otherwise. All the Supreme Court really said was that this particular plaintiff couldn't challenge it. You know, I'm I'm a little um usually you have an injunction that will preserve the status quo as a lawsuit goes on, but this is an injunction that is allowing the ballroom to go forward.

It's already 65% built and by the time this gets back, if it ever does, to the Supreme Court, it'll likely be done. So, it's not preserving the status quo.

No, it is not. And I personally, although I cannot read the justice's minds, um I can't obviously speak for them, but it doesn't seem to me that the court as a whole is really trying to manage or maintain the status quo here. It's pretty clear to me that they're very willing to allow the construction to proceed, understanding that that means it will be nearly impossible to undo and that effectively the president has just been granted the authority to do what he should not have the authority to do.

This administration mentions national security. It seems to me like in almost every argument there's a national security reason. I mean, did they actually buy that this is required for national security? National security wasn't the initial focus. Trump has been wanting to build this ballroom since Barack Obama was