President Donald Trump intends to appeal the legal battle over his planned White House ballroom to the Supreme Court, following a D.C. Circuit Court decision that blocked above-ground construction without congressional approval. The appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, determined the project could not proceed. Trump has cited the dissent written by Judge Neomi Rao, who argued that the plaintiffs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, lack the necessary legal standing.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation based its standing argument on a member, Alison Hoagland, who lives near the White House and visits President's Park. Hoagland stated that the proposed ballroom's scale and design would diminish her enjoyment of the area by overshadowing the White House and impacting its aesthetic.
However, Judge Rao contended that the National Trust did not demonstrate the kind of injury required for courts to block the project, suggesting the aesthetic displeasure of a passerby was elevated over national security interests and the risks associated with an open construction site at the president's residence and workplace.
Legal experts believe the National Trust faces a significant hurdle in proving standing at the Supreme Court. Abhishek Kambli, a former Justice Department attorney, stated that the group must show its lawsuit is germane to its interests, noting that President's Park is not among the properties owned by the National Trust. He anticipates the Supreme Court will likely side with Judge Rao due to its strict stance on standing.
Kambli also suggested that establishing aesthetic injury requires proof of intent to use the specific space where construction is proposed. He argued that a claim based on merely passing by the site is more difficult to sustain. A similar standing issue arose in July when a district court rejected a lawsuit against an event at the White House, ruling that the plaintiffs had not met the standard for aesthetic harm.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, echoed these sentiments, asserting that Supreme Court precedent requires a demonstration of concrete, actual injury. He called the notion of a passerby being aesthetically injured by views of the White House absurd and contrary to precedent.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could potentially resolve the matter based on the standing issue alone, without ruling on the underlying question of whether the administration had the legal authority to build the ballroom. Von Spakovsky noted that it is unclear if any other entity could establish standing to sue, suggesting Congress might, but partisan divisions make this unlikely.
The National Trust argued that federal law mandates congressional approval for new construction on federal property in Washington, D.C. Conversely, the administration maintains that existing law grants the president the authority to make alterations and improvements to federal property, including the White House. Kambli suggested that terms like "alteration" and "improvement" should be understood in their ordinary real-property context, akin to adding an extension to a house rather than constructing a new one.