The Administration won a major victory before the Supreme Court this week, securing a 5-4 decision allowing the resumption of construction of the new White House ballroom. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent with his three liberal colleagues to oppose the move. The case turns on the standing of challengers to bring the case. However, as a torts professor, what intrigued me was what the case says about aesthetic injuries.
In torts, I teach aesthetic nuisance cases where courts tend to reject claims of injury due to eyesores and blight. Such claims are disfavored in both codes and cases: “Things merely disagreeable, however, which simply displease the eye or offend the taste, or shock an oversensitive or fastidious nature, no matter how irritating or unpleasant, are not nuisances.” 81 N.Y. Jur. 2d Nuisances § 17 (2014).
As one court ruled in Missouri in Ness v. Albert, 665 S.W.2d I (Mo. Ct. App. 1983):
“Aesthetic considerations are fraught with subjectivity. One man’s pleasure may be another man’s perturbation…Judicial forage into such a nebulous area would be chaotic. Any imaginary good from doing so is far outweighed by the lurking danger of unduly circumscribing inherent rights of ownership of property and grossly intimidating their lawful exercise.”
While not a nuisance action, the decision in National Park Service, et al. v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States raises a parallel issue on standing. At issue is the right of a private group to stop a major construction project based on claims that the ballroom is oversized and obnoxious to some.
The Court has long maintained a demanding standing doctrine under Article III of the Constitution, requiring a showing of an “injury in fact” that is based on the “invasion of a legally protected interest.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992). That requires an injury that is “(a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent.”
The claim, upheld by the D.C. Circuit, is based primarily on the eyesore injury of one person who would have to walk by the structure:
“To establish its standing to bring this case, the Trust relies on a declaration from a single of its members, Alison K. Hoagland. Hoagland says she lives in Washington, D.C., and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House “about once a month.” App. to Application 73a–74a. She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer “injuries” to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” because she finds the “scale,” “height,” and “massing” of the government’s design distasteful. Id., at 75a. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust contends, it has Article III standing to challenge the East Wing project.”
The per curiam opinion rejects the aesthetic injury at the base of the standing claim. The majority notes the importance of the project, including security elements such as the bunker below the ballroom. It then states:
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger and against these harms, the only harm the Trust claims is the offense one of its members will suffer from having to view a structure of the “scale,” “height,” and “massing” the government intends…These harms and equities are not nearly in equipoise.
The size of the ballroom has drawn criticism from many, including many who agree with the President that a ballroom has long been needed. Architects associated with the project demurred as the President demanded a large structure. However, the question is whether that injury alone can sustain judicial review. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that an eyesore is no injury when it comes to Article III standing.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I think I can help here. The definition of “nuisance”, such as it is, seems a little squishy to me. Here is a better one:
A nuisance is a condition that is objectionable to others (there seems to be some agreement on this), and is, at the same time, impossible to ignore and inconvenient to avoid.
“Impossible to ignore” — think of the “musician” who wants to practice the drums at 3:00 am in a crowded apartment building with thin walls.
“Inconvenient to avoid” — his neighbors could move elsewhere, but that is inconvenient and places the burden of remedy on those who are negatively affected.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded entity. Think of the Sierra Club cases….and the Defenders of Wildlife (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555).
I believe instructive language regarding cognizable and actionable “injury,” “particularization,” “imminent” and “concrete,” as averred to/-or not averred to by Hoagland (who tried by providing an affidavit) is well addressed in Lujan, pp. 560, 562-567
https://www.culturalheritagepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/24-49_Decl_NationalTrust_AHoagland.pdf
nite nite, all.
ooops. wrong attachment, here is Hoagland affidavit for THIS case. Obviously, she’s done this before..and plaintiffs noticed.
https://www.scribd.com/document/1041419431/Gov-uscourts-dcd-287645-2-3
nite nite, for real, this time.
The Supreme Court is a place of pretentious legal hair-splitting on this one. Stopping the project at this stage?…and what?
Common sense has left the chamber.
The only way this Ballroom could run into major trouble is the private fundraising runs out of steam before the job is finished. Congress would have to fund the finish. Pres. Trump took a big risk on the funding strategy. I hope the project gets finished. We need a Secure Ballroom for large events hosted by the President and FLOTUS.
SCOTUS made the correct call, but the written Per Curium is a waste of paper and ink. CJ Robert’s dissent is choking with strained argumentation about “esthetic injury” meeting standing. He is a lightweight; a weakling.
A Timeline of White House Renovations Through the Years
As a judge ordered President Trump to pause construction on his proposed ballroom, AD takes a look back at the history of design updates to America’s most famous residence
White House renovations over the years
1789–1800: The new seat of a new nation
1814: Rebuilding from the ashes
1881: Victorian obsession and a Tiffany window
1902: A classical renovation, courtesy of Roosevelt
1942: An addition to conceal
1948–1952: Wear and tear requires renovation
1961: Jacqueline Kennedy redecorates with dignity
1979: A sustainable future
2013: “The Audacity of Taupe”
2017: Trump’s “dump” rehauled
2025: A paved paradise and a gilded ballroom
By: Carrie Hojnicki and Elizabeth Fazzare ~ April 1, 2026
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/white-house-renovations-timeline
AI Overview:
The proposed 90,000-square-foot, $400 million White House State Ballroom project—designed by Shalom Baranes Associates on the site of the demolished East Wing—has drawn intense design commentary from publications like Architectural Digest for its heavy Neoclassical gilding, massive scale, and controversial execution.
Design and Architectural Features
Capacity: Built to seat up to 650 guests, vastly expanding upon the East Room’s 200-seat limit.
Exterior: Features a monumental double colonnade with Corinthian columns, painted white to match the historic executive residence, alongside decorative gold presidential seals.
Interior: Plans and renderings showcase heavily gilded ornamental ceilings, grand chandeliers, and classic classical details.
Security & Infrastructure: Incorporates a deep multi-story underground bunker system, blast-proof materials, and a roof-level drone port.
Project Status and Controversy
Funding: Financed through private contributions and corporate donors rather than direct federal taxpayer appropriations.
Legal Battles: The National Trust for Historic Preservation launched legal challenges over the demolition of the East Wing without formal congressional authorization.
Current Status: Following successive lower and appellate court fights regarding executive overreach, the Supreme Court cleared construction to proceed while litigation continues.
The decision to make a ballroom is not allowed by the Constitution.
Someone made an unconstitutional decision, which should be illegal and unconsitutional.
It may be that Trump’s actions to build the ballroom are illegal, but that doesn’t mean that this case has any grounds to stop it.
If the offense is that he violated the right of Congress to make decisions, Congress needs to take action, not some random private party claiming they will be harmed by it being in their field of view once a month
It would be like suing to shut down the FBI on the grounds that the Hoover building is ugly (it is, but that’s not grounds to shut down the organization)
Congress should pass a law that ends the Trump presidency.
Here is a related video by David Pakman:
Thank you David.
Can I get all of you free speech lovers to agree that it should be illegal for Trump to keep a list of “media offenders”?
Making it illegal would be a good way to preserve freedom.
Conservatives are supposed to be against abuses of power from a central authority.
Anybody can keep a list of anything, that is not illegal. What he does with the list is what counts. For example, with Biden, he embedded federal agents into social media companies to censor conservatives stories. That was illegal (I wonder, did you complain about that?). He also tried to set up a Joseph Goebbels like Ministry of Truth, but even that was a bridge too far for his cronies.
But no, just keeping a list is not illegal.
#WeAreEstovir
Not the same anonymous and I don’t think this should necessarily be illegal, but a list can absolutely be illegal if used as a true threat to intimidate. Kill lists, for example.
Trump is clearly using this type of list to intimidate – when that reaches the level of intimidation necessary to deem it an infringement of free speech is an open question. The stunt with Kimmel was certainly close.
The thing that I think makes this not an issue is simply the fact that no one takes Trumps words seriously. That is of course its own issue, but it works in his favor here.
” it should be illegal for Trump to keep a list of “media offenders”?”
What makes lists illegal?
“illegal for Trump” suggests laws that are selective for specific people. You sound like an authoritarian.
Estovir: A Wounded Warrior Gratefully Employed
There’s a theory making the rounds that puppeteer Estovir is quite possibly a disabled veteran.
The scenario goes that Estovir lost his legs to a roadside bomb in Iraq and came home, to Alabama, with a host of troubling issues. Most notably Estovir became addicted to OxyContin in response to anxieties that he was only ‘half a man’.
That tortured path might have led to suicide. But good fortune intervened when a Koch-sponsored proxy group set out to recruit wounded warriors for a battle they could fight at home from the comfort of their wheelchairs.
Estovir is now gainfully employed as an Online Security Officer covering Johnathan Turley’s Blog. In this capacity, Estovir confronts debauched liberals with an army of puppet commenters. It’s the dream job for a ‘half-man’ as Estovir jokingly admits; acknowledging the anxieties that almost destroyed him.
Every year, Estovir is called to speak at a Koch-sponsored banquet. An obligatory standing ovation greets him when Estovir rolls out in his wheelchair. There, at the podium, Estovir comes alive. Regaling the audience with war stories, not from Iraq, but from Johnathan Turley’s Blog.
Estovir animates when telling how he references West Hollywood to shut liberals up. “They got nuttin to say to ‘that’!”, Estovir crows; getting huge laughs. The elation Estovir gets from these banquets carries him all year.
Now of course all THIS IS ALL SPECULATION. Estovir could easily be a mean drunk with no military background. But as Christians and Jews we should ideally consider that even the most obnoxious bores are possibly sympathetic.
So the next time you see a puppet commenter with the hash tag #WeAreEstovir, please consider that he could be a wounded warrior fighting on from his wheelchair.
….And you can be Sigmund The Fraud.
Final Grade: Illogical Illiterate, Finicky Fraud, and Pathetic Parasite
The ballroom is needed to house state dinners, the white house correspondents’ dinner, etc.
Professor. Yes, and for enhanced security with those events, as starkly demonstrated by Cole Tomas Allen earlier this year.
#WeAreEstovir
I have no objection to the expansion of the White House. It’s fairly Classical Architecture and the only real objection is the President who made the change.
If you really wanted to see an official government eyesore, then go to Paris and see the exterior of the Original Pompidou Center. In a city of classics the Center is an affront to one’s eyes and almost causes immediate swelling and tearing.
Once built, the Ballroom will get used and eventually everyone will see it used and the whole discussion and vitriol will pass into oblivion.
GEB: If the ballroom had already been built, maybe Biden would have had a better place for his granddaughter (not daughter) to hold her wedding. (see the WH all decked out in Photo # 9)
https://people.com/politics/naomi-biden-white-house-wedding-photos-peter-neal/
Storming the Capitol on January 6 did not exactly show respect for American institutions.
Trump has torn down the White House and ruined the Reflecting Pool.
Reflecting Pool? You must mean the Strait of Warm Ooze, aka Trump’s algae farm.
You are full of crap when it comes to free expression.
You only want Republicans to have it.
Trump should report himself to the FCC for polluting our spectrum with his lies, accusations, and other nonsense.
“injuries” to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests”
I wish SCOTUS had given her standing on that basis. Then decent people could sue into oblivion lunatic Leftists when they:
— Deface and destroy sculpture and paintings (an aesthetic injury)
— Disrupt sporting events (a cultural interest) to demand climate action
— Parade their ugly, half-naked bodies in the streets while baying at the moon (pollutes the culture and hurts my eyes)
— Erect buildings by Frank Gehry (an aesthetic and historical injury to FLW) Plus we could tear down the existing monstrosities.
— Scream epithets at the top of their lungs (injury to ears, an aesthetic organ); treble damages if they have blue hair (an aesthetic injury)
— And most of all: Sue anytime Leftists tear down American values and institutions (historical and cultural interests), and anytime they pollute American holidays with their barbaric performances and costumes (injury to all three interests)
With comments like this, you are not demonstrating a belief in free expression, something that should be par for the course on a free speech blog.
Sam is Estovir.