Legal issues that reach the Supreme Court are often interesting to see how the court resolves various competing interests. One of the basic things that all law students learn early in their training is that standing is required in order to file a lawsuit. That is, there must be a person who is being harmed by actions or proposed actions.
Applying this to the federal government’s actions, there is no such thing as taxpayer standing. One cannot sue just because you do not like how the government is spending your tax dollars. There are other remedies in our constitutional system for that. They are called elections.
This brings us to the ballroom construction case that was before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 5-4 to allow the $400 million construction of President Trump’s White House ballroom to continue, citing lack of legal standing for the preservationist challengers.
How did the principle of legal standing work here?
Mark Meuser notes
In plain English, standing asks a very simple question: What did the government do to you?
It is not enough to say, “The government is breaking the law.”
It is not enough to say, “I don’t like what the government is doing.”
And it is not enough to say, “I am a citizen and I want a federal judge to make the government stop.”
You generally have to show that what the government is doing is causing you a real and particularized injury.
That principle controlled this Supreme Court decision. Obviously, this one was a close call or was it?
The majority opinion, delivered in an unsigned order, focused on standing, concluding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were unlikely to demonstrate a concrete injury sufficient to sue under Article III. The Court also noted national security considerations, as the ballroom is integrated with underground military, medical, and security facilities, and argued that halting construction could cause irreparable harm.
National security issues often overrule other considerations. Supreme Court justices often give wide discretion to the Executive branch when such issues come into play. The FISA Court is one very clear example of this. Perhaps too much discretion in that case.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s three leftist justices, dissented strongly. Roberts felt that the National Trust’s member, Alison Hoagland, had sufficient standing due to her professional and personal interest in historic preservation.
Her claimed injury was essentially this: She is interested in historic architecture, she likes looking at the White House as it traditionally appears, and when the new ballroom is completed, she is not going to like looking at it.
SCOTUS basically ruled that is not the kind of injury that gives one standing to sue. Note that SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of what the Trump administration is doing.
Regarding that legality, it should be noted that the White House, Capitol Building, and Supreme Court are exempt from any consultation or permission from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation when it comes to making renovations, structural changes, and construction according to Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Trump only needs permission from Congress if the construction needs to use taxpayer funds. The military portion of the facility is using unused and unspent military funds to build, which is allowed under the President’s emergency powers. The remaining portion is coming from donations. So, at least on the surface, it appears that no taxpayer funds are being used for the non-military portions of the East Wing.
I wonder if this change to the East Wing had been done under Obama or Biden if there would have been a lawsuit. And if such a lawsuit had been filed, would the vote at the Supreme Court denying standing have been 8-1 or 9-0? Just asking for a friend.