SCOTUS allows Trump to proceed with ballroom construction on the arcane basis of "standing," but even John Roberts states that the administration and court's right-wing majority got it wrong on that issue

(News 9 WAOW, Facebook)

Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court order that allows Donald Trump to continue construction on his White House ballroom/military bunker makes little sense. So it is fitting that one of the nation's top news sites created a nonsensical headline to spotlight its story about the nonsensical handiwork of Chief Justice John Roberts and his right-wing henchmen on the high court. 

Here is how Politico topped off its story about the Trump administration's seemingly desperate efforts to destroy any semblance of "The People's House" that Americans once knew: "Supreme Court OKs Trump's ballroom construction, but Roberts says project is 'likely unlawful.'"

That might prompt readers who have followed our coverage of the ballroom saga to say, "Hey Schnauzer,  didn't you write the other day that Roberts issued an order allowing Trump to proceed with his ballroom project. Is the chief justice simply reissuing that order now?" The answer is "not exactly." 

As we wrote in a post dated Aug. 24/ 2026, "Roberts ignored all kinds of longstanding law in order to let Trump proceed with his pet project. But that was a temporary order, also known as an administrative stay,  designed to buy time for the full court to consider Trump's appeal of a lower-court ruling that went against him.

So yesterday's order involved the full court weighing in, and here is how Politico describes what transpired, focusing on Roberts' ability to pull off a curious switcheroo:

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to press on with his White House ballroom project — over a strident objection from Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing.

The justices' 5-4 ruling maintains the high court's hold on a federal appeals court ruling that called for a halt to the project after concluding it lacked approval from Congress.

In an unsigned order Monday, the Supreme Court's majority said a historic preservation group that sued over the project appeared to lack legal standing, while national security concerns favored allowing the construction to continue. The majority did not opine on whether the project is legal. 

That reminds us of all the ways the Supreme Court's handling of this matter is duplicitous, starting with the chief justice, per Politico:

Writing for the dissenters, Roberts said the project is "likely unlawful."

"The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture," Roberts wrote, adding that it is critical to "ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People's House."

The court's majority insisted it was not resolving the legal arguments over the president's power to unilaterally make major changes to the White House. But the decision Monday means it is likely that the ballroom will be fully built before that question is definitively resolved.

How many ways is Roberts two-faced? Let's consider some of the ways:

(1)  Roberts says the Trump project, which essentially aims to destroy the White House, is "likely unlawful." In truth, it is "absolutely unlawful." In an earlier report, we cited 40 U.S. Code, Sec. 8106 for its holding that "A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.” The law is exceedingly clear that Trump could not "erect a building or structure . . . without the express authority of Congress, and yet he demolished the East Wing without even seeking authorization, and a 5-4 right-wing majority is fine with Trump blatantly violating the law. Did Roberts not know that two lower courts had gotten the law right, but he is letting Trump proceed with what one of the lower courts called "lawlessness."

(2) Roberts says it is critical to "ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People's House." But he and his conservative majority are not holding Trump responsible in any way.

Ultimately, a lower court found the White House case to be unpersuasive:

In National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided against the Trump administration primarily on the following grounds, as stated by Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, writing in the majority:

The White House is the People’s House, and under the Constitution’s Property Clause, Congress exercises plenary control over the building and its surrounding land. The White House is also the centerpiece of President’s Park, a National Park stewarded by the National Park Service. . . .  Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence. The President has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all Presidents, current and future, and for the American people. As the defendant National Park Service has explained, “[t]he White House is owned by the American people and stewarded by the National Park Service. It is more than the President’s residence; it is a site for protests and national discourse about what it means to be American.”

As for the court's right wing finding that a historic preservation group lacked standing to challenge Trump, we more or less saw that one coming in an August 1 post, which cited the work of journalists/lawyers at the Above the Law (ATL) legal website:

Because Trump has no authority to rebuild the White House without Congressional approval, the DOJ has leaned hard into to standing as a means to defeat this case. It sneers contemptuously that architectural historian Alison Hoagland, the individual plaintiff through whom the Trust claims aesthetic injury, is merely “a single person who walks her dog in the vicinity of the White House.”

In fact, aesthetic standing is a well-established doctrine that has been around for decades. And, as Judge Millett pointed out in her opinion affirming the injunction, this “cramped standing theory would deem no one injured by a decision to raze the Statue of Liberty, to obscure the names on the Vietnam War Memorial, or to install a political billboard atop Mount Rushmore.”

Even John Roberts, of all people wrote that the administration -- and his right-wing colleagues -- were wrong about the issue of standing, as Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog reports:

In his six-page dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, Roberts countered that “[a] historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys, just as,” based on prior court precedent, “an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys.” Roberts ended the opinion by quoting Winston Churchill, who said that “[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” “All the more reason,” according to Roberts, “to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

U.S. Circuit Judges Millett and Garcia had some forceful words for Trump's unilateral approach to renovation of historic public property. Per ABC News, they write in their opinion:

"Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence. The President has no -- and claims no -- constitutionally assigned authority over that property," they wrote.

"Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," they wrote. 

"This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom. What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require," they said.  

While the appeals court acknowledged the national security concerns associated with the East Wing renovations, the majority said that those concerns are not an "automatic get-out-of-law-free card" to violate the law.

"Congress has not given the Park Service authority, specifically and expressly, or otherwise, to raze protected historic sites in the name of presidential functions or national security," wrote Millett and Garcia. 

The majority added that national security concerns are exactly the reason why Congress should be involved in the project. 

"It is Congress's job to ensure that any major construction and security projects at the White House will protect the safety of all Presidents, present and future, while preserving the historical and architectural significance of that unique location. Congress cannot perform its constitutional function when the Executive chooses to proceed wholly unilaterally," they wrote.

Perhaps the most memorable, and important, statement so far in the ballroom case comes from Millett and Garcia:

“The bold assertion that the Executive can act with utter lawlessness, destroying treasured national landmarks and harming the interests of individuals, and that no court can stop it, flouts our constitutional order. And it is no basis on which to claim the favor of courts’ equitable judgment. While this court accords great weight and deference to invocations of national security and the safety of the President, such arguments are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card.”