Supreme Court Refuses to Let ‘Aesthetic’ Objections Stop Trump’s Ballroom

The injunction against Donald Trump’s East Wing ballroom has been shot down by the Supreme Court. The Court’s 5–4 decision, by a per curiam opinion in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, was issued on the emergency docket, and the Court professed that “we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project.” Indeed, its decision doesn’t address the intricate web of statutes and appropriations upon which a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit relied in ruling that Congress (which has plenary constitutional authority over federal property) had not delegated authority to the president to cross the line beyond the mere “improvement” of the property. But while some emergency docket rulings might not settle the matter, the Court here rejected the plaintiff’s legal theory of Article III standing to sue. In short, nobody has suffered a legal harm from the ballroom to justify making a federal case of it.

That looks like the right decision. The D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, had standing to sue based upon an “aesthetic injury” to one of its members. As the Court describes that injury:

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

The injunction against Donald Trump’s East Wing ballroom has been shot down by the Supreme Court. The Court’s 5–4 decision, by a per curiam opinion in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, was issued on the emergency docket, and the Court professed that “we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project.” Indeed, its decision doesn’t address the intricate web of statutes and appropriations upon which a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit relied in ruling that Congress (which has plenary constitutional authority over federal property) had not delegated authority to the president to cross the line beyond the mere “improvement” of the property. But while some emergency docket rulings might not settle the matter, the Court here rejected the plaintiff’s legal theory of Article III standing to sue. In short, nobody has suffered a legal harm from the ballroom to justify making a federal case of it.

That looks like the right decision. The D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, had standing to sue based upon an “aesthetic injury” to one of its members. As the Court describes that injury: