Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals in dissenting from a stay that lets President Donald Trump continue White House ballroom construction.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed the lawsuit to halt construction, claiming the president did not have the power to unilaterally build the ballroom.
'We have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury.'
The trust was able to obtain an injunction against the building from the D.C. District Court, but the ruling Monday allows the president to continue construction.
"Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks ... standing to challenge the project in federal court," read the majority decision.
Roberts had previously allowed construction to continue while the rest of the court considered the full issue, but he joined the liberal justices in the dissent Monday.
"Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year. That construction is likely unlawful," Roberts wrote.
The trust claimed a preservationist member who lives in Washington suffered "professional and personal injuries" while walking by the White House. However, the majority said the government could "likely" show that such distaste would not be enough for the trust to have standing.
"To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury," the court said.
RELATED: Trump team mocks outrage of 'unhinged leftists' as construction of ballroom begins
The trust had argued that the president needed the "express authority of Congress" before ordering construction on federal land in Washington, D.C.
The Trump administration argued that the construction was necessary in part because of threats of political violence and the lack of sufficient security at venues available for political events.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ordered Friday that the Trump administration could restart construction on the White House ballroom.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation had filed the lawsuit to stop the ballroom on the basis that it violated environmental laws and other restrictions on construction at the nation's capital.
'They are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States, both current and future, their families, staff, and Cabinet members.'
Construction had been blocked by an injunction from the D.C. District Court, but Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay of the injunction, allowing construction to continue, "pending further order of the Chief Justice or of the Court."
However, the chief justice did not opine on the legality of the construction.
President Donald Trump has argued that the construction of the ballroom is necessary for security reasons after the assassination attempt in April at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his petition to the justices that the ballroom was "vitally required by national security" and called the injunction "extraordinary and unlawful."
He went on to call for an end to the injunction "for the sake of the president's safety, the continuity of government, and the separation of powers."
Originally the administration said the $400 million price tag for the ballroom addition would be completely privately funded, but it has since asked for public funds after the cost ballooned to at least $600 million.
RELATED: Liz Warren launches investigation into Trump's WH ballroom — the backlash is hilarious
About $352 million in taxpayer dollars was funneled to the project through Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The president had blasted the members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in a post on Truth Social a week ago after they were able to obtain the injunction.
"They are very bad for our Country. They stop many projects that are worthy, and hurt many others. In this case, they are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States, both current and future, their families, staff, and Cabinet members."
He also called them "TREASONISTS" for filing a lawsuit against the military complex.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s testimony at a July Senate hearing raised troubling questions about accountability in judicial education.
Kagan acknowledged that she wrote the foreword to the Federal Judicial Center’s “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” without reading its climate-change chapter — a chapter later removed after critics identified serious bias concerns. She also admitted that she still had not read it.
Kagan’s admission offers a cautionary example. Rank does not excuse a failure of diligence.
Her foreword presents the manual as an objective resource for judges handling cases involving complex scientific evidence, from epidemiology to emerging technologies. Yet Kagan placed her authority behind a volume whose most contentious material she had not taken the time to examine.
That failure weakens the manual’s credibility and raises a broader question: How carefully are judges scrutinizing the scientific authorities placed before them?
The fourth edition of the influential manual, used by thousands of federal judges, drew immediate objections. The Federal Judicial Center withdrew the climate chapter in February after state attorneys general cited imbalances and potential conflicts of interest.
The problems did not end there.
A separate chapter on the nature of science remains in the manual despite presenting a distorted account of scientific inquiry. Kagan’s foreword also remains, still attesting to the volume’s reliability and impartiality.
Earlier editions offered a clearer standard. Physicist David Goodstein emphasized empirical testing, falsifiable predictions, reliable data, and other central principles of scientific reasoning.
The new chapter moves in a different direction. It elevates social considerations and consensus among experts while giving less attention to the rigorous testing that separates science from assertion.
Scientific collaboration matters. Consensus can also provide useful evidence. But “widespread agreement” cannot substitute for disciplined scrutiny, especially in court.
The Supreme Court’s Daubert standard requires judges to assess whether expert testimony rests on testable methods, peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance — all tethered to observable reality.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman stated the principle plainly: “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
History offers repeated warnings about confusing consensus with truth.
RELATED: Out of order: Courts shouldn’t rule based on ‘trust us’ science
Dominant scientific views have often yielded to better evidence. In darker cases, governments have enforced consensus through political power. Under Joseph Stalin, Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected genetic science in favor of politically favored theories of inheritance. The state elevated his ideas into doctrine, silenced dissenting scientists, and inflicted lasting damage on Soviet agriculture.
The lesson is not that expert agreement has no value. It is that agreement must remain answerable to evidence.
That principle matters especially in courtrooms, where scientific claims can determine enormous legal and economic consequences.
The revised chapter also raises questions about authorship. Several contributors have ties to climate-policy negotiations, including work involving international financial mechanisms. Those backgrounds do not automatically disqualify them. But in an era of sprawling climate litigation, involving more than 1,000 active cases and potential liabilities reaching into the trillions of dollars, such ties create at least the appearance of imbalance.
Prominent scientists, including widely published physicists, have urged Chief Justice John Roberts and the Federal Judicial Center to revisit the chapter. They argue that the manual should restore clear explanations of hypothesis testing and empirical verification rather than rely on sociological descriptions of how scientific communities operate.
Courts increasingly adjudicate scientific disputes with consequences affecting millions, and sometimes billions, of people. The reference materials judges rely on must therefore withstand the strictest tests of objectivity.
Kagan’s admission offers a cautionary example. Rank does not excuse a failure of diligence. Judicial integrity depends on personal responsibility, especially when a justice lends her name and authority to a supposedly impartial guide.
RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes SWATTING attack against her family
The Federal Judicial Center can still repair the damage. It should restore the manual’s emphasis on empirical verification, seek broader input from experts without policy entanglements, and reaffirm the manual’s limited role as a procedural guide rather than an arbiter of scientific truth.
Judges should also treat such manuals as starting points, not substitutes for primary research, adversarial testing, and careful examination of the evidence before them.
Kagan endorsed a manual without reviewing one of its most disputed sections. That lapse compromised the diligence her foreword implicitly promised.
The Federal Judicial Center should now restore the manual’s credibility by recommitting it to empirical evidence, falsifiability, and genuine viewpoint diversity. The integrity of judicial decision-making demands nothing less.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara struck down President Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority found a constitutional violation where none exists.
The court has ruled. Now Congress must answer.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate opinion points to the path forward. He agreed that the executive order conflicts with the law’s current language, but he rejected the majority’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Congress now has both the authority and the responsibility to act.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ exhaustive dissent recovered the original public meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That phrase required more than physical presence. It contemplated complete political allegiance and permanent domicile.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment distinguished permanent members of the American political community from temporary visitors and people who remained subject to foreign powers.
Justice Samuel Alito also warned of the consequences of the majority’s interpretation. Automatic citizenship for the children of illegal entrants and birth tourists creates opportunities for foreign exploitation and weakens the nation’s control over membership in its political community.
This was not a close call.
The majority conflated temporary subjection to American law with the solemn allegiance, duties, and privileges of citizenship in a constitutional republic.
The American Revolution rejected the relationship between monarch and subject. The United States instead recognizes sovereign citizens with God-given rights who consent to government through a shared political compact.
By erasing the distinction between a person temporarily subject to American law and a citizen belonging permanently to the American political community, the court cheapened citizenship and created a serious vulnerability.
The judiciary has failed. Congress must now correct that failure.
Unfortunately, the current Republican Congress has squandered much of the mandate voters delivered. Election-integrity legislation remains unfinished, while promised efforts to restrain activist courts and restore constitutional government have stalled.
Voters have noticed.
RELATED: The birthright ruling leaves Trump one clear move
The legislative solution follows directly from Kavanaugh’s opinion and the historical record presented by the dissenters.
Congress should pass a Birthright Citizenship Reform Act amending 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Citizenship at birth should attach only when at least one parent is a United States citizen or a lawful permanent resident domiciled here.
Congress should also define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude the children of foreign nationals present unlawfully or admitted only temporarily.
The legislation should apply prospectively and include narrow transition provisions. These changes would respect the original limits of the 14th Amendment, close national security gaps, and restore the integrity of American citizenship.
I am running for Congress in Florida’s 19th District because Washington needs representatives willing to turn constitutional principles into legislation.
I qualified for the ballot through citizen participation rather than by writing a check. As a former January 6 defendant who refused a false plea agreement and endured solitary confinement, I understand the cost of standing on principle.
In Congress, I will introduce the Birthright Citizenship Reform Act and fight for its passage. I will also demand action on election integrity and work to restore American sovereignty.
Justice Alito identified the danger. Justice Thomas supplied the historical case. Justice Kavanaugh identified the legislative remedy. All that remains is for Congress to find the courage to enact it.
The court has ruled. Congress must answer.
This is our republic. We have a duty to keep it.
A 99-year-old federal judge scored a major win on Tuesday in her fight against an “unconstitutional” effort to remove her from the bench. According to a new court order, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts transferred the judicial misconduct case of Federal Circuit Court Judge Pauline Newman from the Federal Circuit to the 11th Circuit […]
Past SCOTUS decisions 'make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law unless Congress specifically preserves state law,' said Justice Kavanaugh.
At seemingly every Smithsonian museum, there is anti-American propaganda.
'We conclude only that ... the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.'
The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused a lower court blockade on President Trump’s White House ballroom construction on Friday. After initial consideration, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a stay on an injunction by D.C. District Court Senior Judge Richard Leon from earlier this year. That order effectively halted the White House’s above-ground construction on the […]
In the post-judicial-filibuster world, intellectual adherence to textualism, in and of itself, is no longer sufficient for Republican Supreme Court nominees.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com