(The Center Square) — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Monday, allowed for continued construction on President Donald Trump's estimated $400 million White House ballroom.Â
Justices on the high court said a challenge against the ballroom's construction lacked standing in court and could not be pursued further. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States cited Washington, D.C., resident Alison Hoagland, who said the construction would cause injuries to her "aesthetic, cultural and historical interests."Â
She said the height and scale of the project would be offensive. However, the majority of justices on the high court said her distaste for the project could not be classified as a reason to end ballroom construction.Â
"Adopting the Trust’s 'unprecedented and limitless' view that offense alone suffices to establish a concrete and particularized injury would seemingly usher in a world where 'virtually every citizen had standing to challenge virtually every government action that they do not like—an approach to standing that this Court has consistently rejected as flatly inconsistent with Article III," the majority of justices on the high court wrote.Â
Justices on the high court also highlighted security concerns associated with halting planned construction of the ballroom. The structure is designed to include bomb shelters, a drone port and advanced medical facilities.Â
The justices said courts should not have the authority to stop parts of the planned construction while allowing national security features to continue being implemented.Â
"Freezing construction would risk significant 'construction-related problems' ranging from concerns about how to secure the structural integrity of a partially completed superstructure to the possibility of having to delay the installation of infrastructure 'required to make below-ground facilities operational,'" the justices wrote.Â
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the high court's decision. Roberts, the author of the dissenting opinion, said Congress is responsible for authorizing construction on public lands, like the President's Park on the White House grounds.Â
During arguments, the Trump administration pointed to appropriations from Congress to pay for maintenance of the lands surrounding the White House. However, the justices said these appropriations are not aligned with Congressional authority.Â
"That appropriation of a couple million dollars for ordinary Executive Residence maintenance and repairs likely does not authorize the President to use hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to tear down the East Wing and construct a ballroom in its stead," Roberts wrote.Â
Roberts also affirmed that Hoagland could be injured by the ballroom's construction in a way appropriate for the court to address. He compared her injury to that of an environmentalist whose favorite animal went extinct due to pollution.Â
"The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff ’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue," Roberts wrote. "Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers."
White House officials have previously said the ballroom will be completed by 2028.Â
Commented