Trump's Trials - Supreme Court allows Trump's ballroom construction to continue

Episode Date: September 1, 2026

The Supreme Court is allowing construction to continue on the White House ballroom over dissents from the chief justice and the court's three liberals. NPR's Carrie Johnson reports. Then, NPR's Leila Fadel asks Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck about the separation of powers issues raised by the Supreme Court's decision on the White House ballroom.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

I'm Scott Detrow, and this is Trump's terms from NPR. Every episode, we bring you one story from NPR's coverage of the Trump administration with the focus on actions and policies that take the presidency into uncharted territory. Here's the latest from NPR. From NPR News, I'm Lela Foddil in Washington, D.C. And I'm May Martinez in Los Angeles, California. The Supreme Court is allowing construction on the White House ballroom to continue. That hands President Trump a victory on one.

of his top priorities, despite a dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices. In a few minutes, we'll hear analysis on the ruling from Georgetown law professor Stephen Vlatic, but first, some details on the majority's opinion. MPR's, Kerry Johnson, has been following the case. Carrie, why is the Supreme Court siding with the Trump administration on this? The court said it was not tackling the heart of the matter whether this construction is legal for now. But the majority five justices said the group suing over the ball. ballroom project had not suffered a direct concrete injury that would allow it to bring the case to court. The Supreme Court majority said, quote, mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as an

injury to get through those courthouse doors. And the majority also said the government will likely suffer irreparable harm if construction is delayed. They mentioned court papers filed by leaders of the CIA, the FBI, and the director of national intelligence, who all said national security could be at risk. and it could be harder to protect the president. All right, so that's the majority. The court, though, was closely divided five-four. What did the dissenters say? In a bit of a surprise, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent,

and he was joined by the three liberal justices. They all agreed with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argued the construction is likely unlawful, because federal law says Congress needs to approve buildings on federal park grounds, and Congress has not passed any law to pave the way for this ball. room. John Robert says the White House is an iconic building whose, quote, symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture. He says the White House is not just any building. And the member of the National Trust who said she was injured here is not just any person. She's an expert on

architecture. Her name is Allison Hoagland. She talked to Morning Edition this year near the construction site at the White House. Here's what she said at the time. As most Washingtonians do we come through here all the time. This is the center of the city. And the White House is so visually accessible to all of us. Now, the National Trust says it's disappointed with this ruling, and presidents are only temporary stewards of the people's house. What's the reaction from the White House? You know, despite everything going on, the wars, high prices for consumers,

President Trump has really focused on the ballroom and other construction projects around the city. He posted on true social, quote, I'm pleased to report the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the ballroom, military complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. Trump is so detail-oriented about these projects. He even gave reporters a tour of the ballroom in May. Now, does the Supreme Court's decision mean that Trump's ballroom has no more obstacles to get around? The court is letting the construction continue for now, but it left some room to hear the underlying dispute about the legality of this project in the future.

There's a complicating factor. In court papers, the Trump administration says crews are working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to finish this project. The construction's been underway for the better part of a year. And a lot more work could be done by the time the Supreme Court gets to the biggest question. In this case, the president seems aware of that. He said on social media, it will all be complete in the summer of 2028, something he says the country can be proud of.

That's NPR's Carrie Johnson. Carrie, thanks. Thank you. Let's get into more of the legal issues posed by the Supreme Court's ruling on the White House Ballroom Project with Stephen Vladdick. He's a professor at Georgetown law and an expert on the Supreme Court, and he's been listening along with us, Professor Vlatic. Good morning. Good morning, Leila. So in your view, is this case about a group trying to block a construction project because they don't agree with it? Or does this decision set a bigger precedent this case?

I think, unfortunately, it sets a bigger precedent because it's just the latest in the case. string of cases where the Trump administration and President Trump directly has tried to spend money that Congress has not appropriated, has basically arrogated to itself the power of the purse. And this is at least the third time that the Supreme Court, through one of these emergency orders, has allowed the president to do that without actually holding that it was legal simply by making it harder for people to challenge that in court. Were you surprised by the decision? I guess I was a little surprised.

Chief Justice Roberts, acting by himself, had issued what the lawyers call an administrative stay about 10 days ago, where he had basically temporarily allowed the construction to continue. I think a lot of folks took that as a harbinger of which way the court was leaning. But what's really surprising to me, Lela, is that you had a court basically closed the door on a type of standing on sort of recognizing what kind of plaintiffs could bring a lawsuit like this, that it had deliberately opened in 1992 in an opinion by Justice Antelan Scalia. And so I think the surprise here is not necessarily the result, given what had already happened in the Supreme Court, but the rationale.

Just to make clear, this ruling means that parties can't bring lawsuits like this in the future? It's going to be much harder for parties to rely on what's called aesthetic injuries. You know, Carrie talked to Professor Hoagland in the report. And, you know, the 1992 opinion by Justice Scalia, had specifically allowed for people like that, especially experts in the field, the ones who are most affected, to bring lawsuits in cases like this. Without that line of plaintiffs, Lela, what this really comes down to is in appropriations dispute that only Congress can litigate. And of course, the Congress we have right now has no interest whatsoever in defending its appropriations

power against this administration. Chief Justice John Roberts describes this ruling as, quote, no victory for the separation of powers. How do you read that? I mean, I think he's entirely right, and I think it should be assigned to everyone that he wrote a dissent, only really the third time in one of these Trump emergency docket cases where the Chief Justice has dissented. The separation of powers is supposed to be a two-way street. And when presidents are allowed to basically spend money, Congress hasn't appropriated, not only is that a violation of the separation of powers it's taking Congress's most important power. And the only one the Constitution expressly says

must be exercised by Congress away from the legislature. That has implications far beyond the ballroom. And I think what the Chief Justice is worried about is leaving it to a place where only Congress can enforce its appropriations power is basically leading to a place where appropriations will be litigated only when there's divided government in Washington. I mean, I guess it's hard to get your mind around the fact that the court has not ruled on whether this construction project is legal. and yet it might be finish or close to finish by the time the court issues a final ruling.

Is there a flaw in the system when a project like this can outrun the courts? I think the flaw here is actually in the Supreme Court's own behavior, which is, you know, this is now the 31st conclusive ruling from the court on an emergency application from the Trump administration just since last February. It's the 27th time it has granted relief to President Trump in whole or in part. And really, those rulings are increasingly not temporary when they are clearing the way without actually holding that the products are legal for the president to build the ballroom, for the president to refuse to spend $4 billion in foreign aid appropriations, for the president to remove all transgender service members from the military. Justice Kavanaugh likes to say that these are interim rulings. I think Lela, what we're seeing on the ground is that increasingly these rulings are having permanent effects. maybe not in the substantive law, but in the conduct of the executive branch and in the

arrogation of power from the legislature. And what does that say to you? I think it says to me that the court ought to be taking these disputes more seriously, that it should be abandoning the fiction, that these are interim rulings, and that the court should actually be more careful about the kinds of behavior they're necessarily endorsing in these decisions and not just sort of throwing up their hands and saying, well, we're not deciding in the merits today. when these rulings are effectively deciding on the merits, I think it would behoove all of us for the court to be clear-eyed about that and to understand the consequences of what it's doing.

Stephen Blattuck is a professor at Georgetown Law. Thank you for your time and your insights. Thank you. A note before we go, if you value this show and want to help keep it going, a free and totally easy way to support us is to rate and review Trump's terms on the platform where you listen. in a world of algorithms that goes a long way toward helping us reach new listeners. If you have left a review in the past, thank you so much. I'm Scott Detrow. Thanks for listening to Trump's Terms from NPR.