Why the Supreme Court's ballroom ruling could matter beyond the ballroom
The Supreme Court recently ruled to allow construction on a White House ballroom to continue, citing a lack of standing for the plaintiffs. Legal experts warn that this decision may set a dangerous precedent by making it harder to challenge executive spending and limiting the ability of plaintiffs to sue over aesthetic injuries.
Why it matters
This ruling potentially shifts the balance of power by making it more difficult for Congress or private citizens to check executive branch spending authority.
Trump's Terms Supreme Court allows Trump's ballroom construction to continue The Supreme Court's decision allowing President Trump's White House ballroom construction to continue could have consequences beyond the project, Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck says.
"I think, unfortunately, it sets a bigger precedent," Vladeck told Morning Edition. He said the administration has repeatedly tried to spend money Congress has not appropriated, while the Supreme Court has made it harder to challenge that spending.
Vladeck said that matters because the separation of powers is supposed to be a "two-way street." When presidents spend money Congress has not appropriated, he said, they are not simply expanding executive power but taking away one of Congress' central constitutional powers.
The court majority found that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which was challenging the project, lacked standing — the legal right to sue — because they had not shown a concrete injury.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in