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.”
To think of all the BS with truly stupid office workers and bureaucrats, the paperwork and money I needed to get a permit to renovate a bathroom and add a room in NJ with no neighbors within 500 feet. And Trump had to go to the Supreme Court? What have we become?
This ruling is so critically important, and I’m so happy John Roberts was overruled. By giving Trump the unilateral authority to rip off the East Wing and replace it with the ballroom, they have also given a future president unilateral authority to tear down the ballroom and replace it with an East Wing -as easy as scraping all that tacky gold sh*t off the walls of the oval office. God, this is going to be so fun to watch….
Don’t worry. Those who would tear it down would have to replace it with their own money, too. Libs only want to use taxpayer money. Generosity is a foreign concept to them. And congress, useless as they are, is not stupid enough to vote to pay for that. It’s too visible.
Taxpayers are now on the hook for $300 million for Trump’s ballroom that he said would cost taxpayers nothing. Classic.
Hook? If its donor supported, then how’s that possible? Schumer give you a call this morning?
Dude – Fox News literally reported on this months ago…
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/once-touted-privately-funded-republicans-sneak-taxpayer-cash-trumps-ballroom-project
Dude, it Fox News. Need I say more?
Dude – So NOW you believe Fox news, when the lie aligns to your narrative. Got it.
Repeating a lie over and over does not make it any more true…
Here’s the opinion. Note page 10, the DISSENT which confirms just under $2.5 million being appropriated by Congress and the rest in private donations. So, your claim that taxpayers are on the hook for $300 million is to put it plainly, a lie. This is what it has come to, that a facility that virtually everyone agrees was needed, and that includes a military facility is funded 98% by private funds because if Trump is for it, Congress obstructs. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf
Not one dime of donated funds have gone to this ballroom. It’s all in Trump’s pocket.
Hahahahahaha…and there must be a tie to Mosad too, right?
Sure liar… Proof would be nice. Hey maybe he will keep the 747-8 too
Right george
Glee is Estovir.
While I agree with your thinking, I doubt this will happen anytime soon. The ballroom was needed and if this was any president except Trump, I doubt it would cause much controversy. Personally I think people are more upset because it will be named the Trump Ballroom and that will drive people crazy. Every President and First lady has made structural changes of general improvements to the White house and all except Trump have little outcry. They all have used private donations to carry this out including Obama.
Obama’s “renovation” was literally converting an existing tennis court into a part-time outdoor basketball court and he caught flak for it from Republicans. This isn’t even ‘apples and oranges’. This is ‘apples and hemorrhoids.’ There was a right way to build a ballroom if he had wanted; get congressional approval, be honest and transparent about spending taxpayer dollars on it – and work with historians and conservationists to respect the history of the existing structure during the design phase. But you know it’s a Trump project if its overblown, overbudget, overly tacky and riddled with lies and deception.
So, expose the secrecy of the underground bunker and endanger future presidents? Oh wait, nevermind…that’s already been done by the rabid, TDS inflicted leftists.
Needed for what? There is no critical business of state that is contingent on having a party.
Says the guy who’s never been invited to anything.
The Court appears to be ending its flirtation with aesthetic injury as a basis for standing. That seems good. Note that Roberts sided with the three liberal justices on this and even wrote the dissent. He concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill of all things.
Daniel is one of Estovir’s reserve puppets called back to service. Suezappa below is a newer puppet.
Yawn… poor ano
The ballroom will satisfy several real needs at the White House! Having a secure place to host state dinners & other events that bring in a large group of people will make it much easier to assure the safety of all attendees.
And fleece his guests.
That would be O-dumber & biden
Build it at Camp David, a far more secure place. It would have cost 1% what this garbage will.
We all know that the real cause of action is “Trump is doing it” and anything he does, good or bad or great, must be opposed.
It’s a disgrace that some many in the judiciary and legal profession and media go along with this madness.
You mean you are surprised that some in the legal profession will do anything to make a buck, and that some judges are really political hacks?
Vincente is Estovir plus the anonymous below.
The White House is the active seat of government, not some monument to democrat stupidity.
We are USING it right now to run our country!
Outraged dems focusing on Trump while commies steal everything they have.
I think I need to hear more outrage over the ballroom!
TDS power activate!
The seat of government is Congress, in the Capitol.
Nope dope.
Congress is not the seat of government; it is the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government. The seat of government refers to the location where the government exercises its authority, which in the U.S. is Washington, D.C.
Checks US Constitution – finds no “big party room” in it.
Did you find anything re: NGOs? Or insecure anonymous voting in federal/state elections? Or open, unprotected borders allowing unfettered illegal invasions? Or judicial political activism. Or DEI. Or…
A key legal precedent would be the SCRAP case in which the Supreme Court ruled several of my law students did have legal standing to challenge the approval of a freight rate might adversely affect their ability to enjoy forests, trees, etc. Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, George Washington University Law School.
Freight rate? As in trucking related? Interstate commerce?
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act
Accepting the “I don’t like the way it looks so stop building/destroy it” I, or anyone, could walk by a Planned Parenthood slaughter house and say “I don’t like the way that looks, tear it down”. Ditto any BLM office, Democrat office, etc.
I don’t like the looks of it either. I agree it is oversized and dwarfs the other buildings, creating an imbalance in the campus architecture. It also shifts the focal point away from the White House, which I also dislike. BUT… form FOLLOWS function, not dictates it. We needed the ballroom’s function, and form must be secondary. Also, the expense to build what we needed is being covered by private donors, which is a great gift to the people who are used to being fleeced for everything DC wants. The donors generosity must be applauded.
Besides, if being an eyesore were a criteria for the size and design of buildings, many archetypal nightmares wouldn’t be standing today. Obama’s Library would have never gotten a permit.
Planned Parenthood is not owned by the American people. The White House should represent American humbleness and restraint, not be an ostentatious display that dictators and kings and emperors have used to glorify themselves for centuries.
The majority of work done by Planned Parenthood is in regards sexual health, including exams, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and sexual education. They also provide pregnancy prevention measures, such as condoms, cervical caps, spermicides, and so-called birth control pills. Abortion is an option when all else failed. That failure does not originate within Planned Parenthood, but outside, where Conservatives are against all of the pregnancy countermeasures.
Rambobaggins above and Glee below are definitely Estovir.
It looks beautiful, fit for a head of state. It doubles as a conference center. It removes people from the lawn, accomodaring ladies equitably, and removes the aesthetic eyesore and health hazard of outhouses.
Fit for a king !
Yup! and well overdue!
Washington DC is all the better for Trumps efforts in that city. A capital fit for Americans.
This is a case of confirmation bias from the outset. Trump wants a ballroom; the Democrats oppose whatever Trump wants. Few would rationally disagree that the country needs such a facility. Its cost is minimal in government terms—about $500 million. Yet the Democrats had no problem allowing Somalis to steal $9 billion through fraud in Minnesota alone. Aesthetics? Consider the aesthetics of many of the newer government buildings in D.C. They are horrific.
There is a subtext here. In return for the Democrats’ hatred of Trump, he hates them as well and does not mind pursuing these projects, knowing they will fight them. Trump is not a litigator by profession, but he is an expert at litigation. He senses a winning position.
But, but, but … it is being financed by private donors.
“This ballroom hurts my feelings…” Wahh!
Meanwhile, back at the Oval Office…
Talk to Congress. They voted to fund it.
Gdonaldallen is Estovir giving himself 4 likes. Estovir is also the 2 anonymouses below plus Sally.
CORRECTION: Sally isn’t Estovir.
The fact the ball room is massive and ugly is only a part of the objection. The main issue is that it is completely illegal to build without Congressional approval.
I’ve read this repeatedly over the past 24 hours. If this is the case, why wasn’t the case brought on that challenge?
Because congress was shut out when Trump used donors; no need for financial approval from congress. Expected potential problems solved in advance.
That is not what the law says. Private donations are not a work around Congressional approval. Also there is a federal law that blocks what Trump is doing.
So what does the “law” say Sally? And why didn’t the Democrats use whatever that “law” states against Trump in the first place?
Please cut and paste in the statute. A google search reveals nothing but opinion pieces. Also, the suit was not brought under a statute.
Under your argument any member of Congress would have standing to file suit, yet none have. This tells me you’re full of it.
Not according to the SCOTUS…or did you miss that ruling?
Ask Harry Truman about permissions when he renovated. BTW, he is not building, but renovating. Crucial difference. You should be a constitutional lawyer.
Truman did get approval. Also building a new structure is not “renovating”.
…. because he used congress for the money to finance the renovation.
It is a “rebuild”. Using AI: “The East Wing project is classified as a rebuild rather than a renovation. This distinction is important as it involves significant structural changes.”
Just learned something. Thanks.
Again, contact your local historical preservation office, if you want truth and facts. They will know much more about rules/regulations regarding what qualifies as a “remodel” than a random AI query.
Maybe you should give your local historical preservation office a call…you’re swimming with sharks and don’t even realize it.
“completely illegal”? Like crossing the border illegal? how completely illegal is it sally?
Do you have a special form of TDS?
Insincere to the end eh?
Come On Man! HOA’s were built and sustained on aesthetic injury & nuisance cases. It is the base premise for their existence and empowerment! Karen and Darren on DAS BOARD are the EYE OF THE BEHOLDER for all the serf’s that reside within the Kingdom! Further, cases revolving around aesthetics, by their nature, always have selective enforcement as their preferred outcome! The SCUM who attempt to rule over others because they ‘know what is best for the rest’ need cases like this to keep the scam going! Sorry but it looks like the White House HOA Supremacists just lost their power over the current homeowner.
It’s not part of a HOA.
The dopey dems seem to think it is!
If it were anyone on the left proposing or doing this, it would be a nothing burger, and Obama would likely have named it after himself, to boot. I’ve stopped looking for sanity in the modern left’s hate – those two things do not and cannot coexist.
re: James
Let’s take a walk down Memory Lane! If Obama had done this MAGA supporters would have melted down and lost it. Republicans weren’t trying to uncover crimes, they were trying to manufacture crimes to fit Obama.
Before winning the election, Republicans were making fun of Obama’s name and calling him a secret Muslim. When they found out he was a life long Christian, they then attacked his Baptist preacher as being too radical. When that didn’t stick to the wall, they called his father a Kenyan Witch Doctor.
Then following the DOJ report in 2014 “Ferguson Report” (available online) – the white racists in St. Louis didn’t want to live next to African-Americans, so they created a majority black small town in the suburbs governed by an all-white town government and mostly white police force. After this recipe for disaster murdered a strait A black student for the crime of Jay walking, the Obama DOJ intervened in Ferguson, Missouri.
The DOJ found that local officials in Ferguson, had racist cartoons of Barack & Michelle Obama and a huge racist problem in their policing-for-profit. The DOJ concluded that tiny police departments, without enough taxpayers, were incentivized to collect revenue through excessive ticketing and excessive fines of mostly poor black citizens. Increased in-person contact with police resulted in more police shootings and citizen deaths (like the straight A black student Michael Brown).
One DOJ solution was to allow bigger cities – like St. Louis – to annex small towns like Ferguson and let the bigger city also annex the local police department (since the town had insufficient tax revenue). So this solution would dissolve Ferguson’s local police department and the town would be policed by St. Louis Police Department, Missouri State Police or the county police force.
As always, the leaders of the Democrats screwed up on the messaging after the Ferguson report. Instead of promoting constitutional-policing (which most voters support), Democrats supported “Defunding the Police”. The Ferguson Report didn’t defund the police, it allowed the bigger police department to annex the tiny police department. This blunder by Democrats helped elect Trump.
In that context of Republicans trying to manufacture wrongdoing against Obama, can you image if Obama demolished the East Wing of the White House around 1:00am in the morning because he knew it was illegal?
No, Obama just demolished the country.
Obama? Against gay marrige and half-black obama?
Cry more about this ballroom.
This whole thing went to the Supreme Court because someone didn’t like the way things looked? Off with her head!
It went to SCOTUS because the Dems want to block anything Trump does. The pretext was flimsy at best. I’m not a lawyer, but I have learned a lot about the law from all the lawfare aimed and Trump and associates. I questioned how a preservation society could have standing to sue over a renovation of the White House. I questioned how they could claim injury. The case should not have gotten past the lower court but of course we have plenty of jurists willing to roadblock anything Trump does. To Trumps credit, he does follow the law and adheres to any adverse ruling of a court while appeals are adjudicated. His predecessor did not. The Dems are steadily eroding the institutions we rely on for a secure and civil country. We see almost daily and through the commentary of J. Turley how degraded the judiciary has become. The Dems promise to pack SCOTUS would be the death knell of our Constitutional Republic.
“what intrigued me was what the case says about aesthetic injuries.” And where were these sensitive types when national memorials were being torn down and tossed? It all depends on which side of the looking glass you are standing. Prog/left = good and anything Trump = bad; there is no middle ground with cult fanatics.
Took you a while to figure that out old woman.
Merely re-emphasizing a conceot is not the same as “figuring it out”. But then, again, with you there is a desparate need to find a mere opening to spew hate. We know that is your only function and we have come to anticipate your wild ravings as a tradition here – some little irritant to keep us entertained.
So you f-ed up. Just admit it then and the world will take its normal course. Spew hate you say? So Its ok if you do it? Anything to do with the fact that you’re an old woman?
I have survived 3/4s of a century, I think that I am far more formidable than most…
so you think you, as a 75 y/o old Karen with hate complex towards liberals and a keyboard make you formidable? whew! come on, that is laughable. go on, just spew you’re nonsense. occasionally look in a mirror for a look at reality.
The message the U.S. Supreme Court has sent in the 21st Century is “Unequal Justice under law” and that there are two systems of justice – the elite can break any law they please, us peasants are the only ones required to follow laws.
By and large, the only elites that get penalized are those that piss off or rip off the super wealthy (ie: Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, etc).
Could any renter of a home, demolish the owner’s house without the owner’s permission and not end up in jail. Trump doesn’t own the White House – you and me own that building. Trump should be required to reimburse taxpayers for destroying a historic building from his personal assets and jail time if we had equal Justice under law.
The Framers of the Constitution created the Bill of Rights primarily to “restrain” government authority, to even restrain presidents. No President has this authority under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Trump is not a renter.
To be exact “you and me” most definitely do not own that building.
And as the SCOTUS stated, there is no injury – he destroyed nothing. Its a rebuild.
You’re really making a fool of yourself.
The East Wing disagrees.
Ironic that a liberal woke woman filed the complaint, and here you a – whatever – woman complain about esthetics. Geeezzzzz……
Aesthetics
Is the building talking to you now? “Please save me from Trump!”
MAYBE it’s TDS? just sayin
Where were you when obama did his tennis court thing??? Or when Harry Truman gutted the entire structure of the White House, or when they built the East Wing? Surely you will come to see how absurd you are simply due to TDS
Aesthetic Injury? Seriously? Are we really arguing in the highest court in the land over OPINION? I think that the Supreme Court’s ruling proves an incredibly important point. The Law is a joke. It’s practitioners are pathetic and the Judiciary is as petty as elderly garden club members arguing over whether Aunt Tillie’s flower arrangement is too gaudy for their luncheon table. Good grief! The three terminally TDS “Justices” can be counted on to follow their Never-Trump script. Roberts is a different story. He’s a stickler for “The Law” unless, of course, he’s adopting a child overseas. Sadly, he’s dumber than the President who appointed him. Considering the quality of the rulings of the Supreme Court, we might be better off picking nine people at random from the Waffle House. They, at least, might have some sense.
Slow down. A complaint was filed. Adjudicated. A district judge stepped in. Made a decision. POTUS appealed. SCOTUS had to respond. It’s all in a day’s work. Happens everyday. Somewhere . What are courts for?
Trump ballroom for the White House, or Obama monument for himself … beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
Except when they’re blind. Like MAGAots.
We need to refer to it as the TDS ballroom from now.
I found the claims against the White House improvement to be totally mendacious and absurd. I personally DETEST modern architecture, yet EVERYDAY I walk by my neighbor’s house, built in such style. Could I sue and have it torn down? Of course not. And of course, this WH ballroom is absolutely beautiful.
The Dems/Libs/Socialists/Anti-American will protest anything any Republican does and especially anything DJT does. They have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on their absurd litigation (and of course $2Billion supporting BLM) him while shutting their eyes and hiding the billions of dollars of fraud their policies have created. I’d like to sue them all!!
It looks beautiful. Fit for a king.
It looks beautiful, fit for our Nation. Thank you to those who willingly donated the money.
The Case against the ballroom was nothing more than a severe case of TDS. Obviously you suffer from the same mental defect.
It is long past time that this was done. We are fortunate to have someone with Trumps experience and vision in the White House to propose and supervise such a project. It does indeed look beautiful and fit for the freest, most prosperous and strongest nation the world has ever known. Contrast that to the Obama Center which looks like something out of the Soviet Union era.
If WE had one.
OOPS