Supreme Court: Shadow Docket Standing Blocks Judge Leon Ballroom Injunction

• The Supreme Court used its shadow docket to stay Judge Richard Leon's injunction, allowing Donald Trump to continue building a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom.
• The Court's eight-page per curiam opinion stated the plaintiff lacked standing and did not rule on the project's legality.
• Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joining Democratic-appointed justices and noting the project's explicit illegality.
• The ruling implies that even if the ballroom project is illegal, it may be difficult for anyone to establish legal standing to challenge it.
• The same federal laws governing the ballroom project also apply to the Supreme Court building, raising questions about accountability for federal construction.

The Court's decision was delivered in an eight-page per curiam opinion. Crucially, the opinion explicitly clarified that the Court was not addressing the fundamental legality of the construction project itself.

The Supreme Court recently utilized its expedited review process, commonly referred to as the "shadow docket," to issue a significant ruling concerning a construction project initiated by Donald Trump. This intervention resulted in the stay of an injunction previously issued by Judge Richard Leon, effectively permitting the continuation of work on a ballroom. The construction site for this 90,000 square-foot event space is located atop what was formerly the East Wing.

The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion underscored that the plaintiff in the case did not possess the requisite standing to pursue the lawsuit. This procedural finding meant that the Court did not delve into whether the construction of the ballroom was permissible under existing law. The implication drawn from this ruling is that, even if the project were indeed illegal, it is probable that no party would have the necessary legal standing to challenge it in court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, expressed a dissenting view on the Court's decision. He joined with the Court's Democratic-appointed justices in his dissent, specifically highlighting what he perceived as the explicit illegality of the construction project. This division within the Court points to a fundamental disagreement over both the procedural aspects of standing and the substantive legal merits of the ballroom's construction.

The legal principles at play in the ballroom construction case extend to other federal properties, including the Supreme Court building itself, located at One First Street in Washington, D.C. This structure, like the site of the contested ballroom, is a federal building situated on federal ground. The same legal framework that governs the legality of the 90,000 square-foot event space would also apply to any proposed alterations or demolitions of the Supreme Court building.

In a thought-provoking commentary on the situation, a hypothetical scenario was presented: the demolition of One First Street to erect an even larger ballroom, justified under the guise of "national security." This satirical proposal serves to underscore the potential for broad interpretations of federal authority and the challenges in holding such projects accountable, particularly when issues of legal standing are paramount. The commentary suggests that if a project like the Trump ballroom can proceed despite questions of legality due to standing issues, similar logic could, theoretically, be applied to other federal properties under different administrations.

Source: Original reporting via Above the Law