Accessibility links Skip to main content Keyboard shortcuts for audio player Open Navigation Menu --> Newsletters NPR Shop Get NPR+ Close Navigation Menu Home News Expand/collapse submenu for News National World Politics Business Health Science Climate Race Culture Expand/collapse submenu for Culture Books Movies Television Pop Culture Food Art & Design Performing Arts Life Kit Gaming Music Expand/collapse submenu for Music Tiny Desk New Music Friday All Songs Considered Music Features Live Sessions Podcasts & Shows Expand/collapse submenu for Podcasts & Shows Daily Morning Edition Weekend Edition Saturday Weekend Edition Sunday All Things Considered Up First Here & Now NPR Politics Podcast Featured Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! Fresh Air Wild Card with Rachel Martin It's Been a Minute Embedded Get NPR+ More Podcasts & Shows Search Newsletters NPR Shop Get NPR+ Tiny Desk New Music Friday All Songs Considered Music Features Live Sessions About NPR Diversity Support Careers Press Ethics Georgetown law professor explains why Trump ballroom ruling matters Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck explains the separation-of-powers questions raised by the Supreme Court's decision on the White House ballroom. Law Why the Supreme Court's ballroom ruling could matter beyond the ballroom Updated September 1, 202611:34 AM ET Originally published September 1, 20267:00 AM ET Heard on Morning Edition By
Leila Fadel
,
Majd Al-Waheidi
Construction of the new ballroom continues at the White House on Sept. 1 in Washington. A divided U.S. Supreme Court allowed construction of the project to continue in a ruling issued Monday. Win McNamee/Getty Images hide caption
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.
Vladeck said it was "not necessarily the result" of the case that surprised him, but the court's rationale. He said this ruling will make it harder for plaintiffs to rely on "esthetic injuries," even though the Supreme Court recognized such claims in a 1992 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The case "comes down to an appropriations dispute that only Congress can litigate," Vladeck said. With the current Congress unwilling to challenge the administration over its spending authority, such disputes could effectively only be litigated during periods of divided government in Washington.
Meanwhile, the administration says crews are working 20 hours a day, seven days a week.
For Vladeck, the flaw is in the Supreme Court's handling of emergency cases. Although the justices describe such rulings as temporary, they can determine what happens on the ground before the underlying legal questions are resolved.
Listen to the full interview by clicking the play button above. The digital version was edited by Suzanne Nuyen.
NPR does not offer or accept money for coverage or interviews. Anyone who makes such an offer or request is not an NPR employee and does not represent NPR.
Sponsor Message
Become an NPR sponsor