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.”
CJ Roberts’ dissent states:
“The second provision tasks the National Park Service
with managing national park land, such as President’s
Park, in a manner that “conserve[s]” the “historic objects”
on that land. 54 U. S. C. §100101(a). This is likely not ex-
press authorization to raze the East Wing and replace it
with a ballroom.”
Why he cited that provision (under Section I-National Park System), I’m not sure?
Under Section III- National Preservation Programs, to wit,
§307104. Inapplicability of division [Division A-Historic Preservation] to White House, Supreme Court building, or United States Capitol
“Nothing in this division applies to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title54-section307104&num=0&edition=prelim
I own a residential building on the National Historic Register.
I actually thought/think that under 54 U.S.C., §307104 was/is still good law.
It seems to me that the ballroom construction project is a reflection of President Trump’s outlook. He saw a need for the White House, particularly given his back ground in the hospitality industry catering to large meetings and building construction. He did not ask for permission but got private funding. Is this a new building that clearly required authorization from Congress or was he remodeling his house? He is pushing (or breaking?) the envelop on his authority. He did not sit around and have a lengthy public debates about the architectural aesthetics. President Trump recognizes that there may be many different ways to architect the new East Wing, but he had to choose one way and he did. He is a do-er. He wants to accomplish something that he sees is beneficial to the US and future presidents. We may not always agree with President Trump aesthetics, but certainly in this case, he has identified and is proceeding at a rapid pace to address a badly needed hospitality facility for this country’s high level political gatherings. Future administrations (and the rest of Federal groupies and camp followers) will wonder how past presidents ever operated without such a facility. It all is coming to fruition because of this most unusual and driven president.
The case was nominally about aesthetics from the perspective of a pedestrian. But right now, all people can see are parts of walls and tower cranes. It is not complete. Aesthetics will come later when we see the finished structure. I am astounded that a court would even allow this to clearly silly complaint to proceed and waste the time of the Supreme court. And even more astounded that 4 of the Justices supported the complaint. In dissent Chief Justice Roberts writes, “Hoagland’s injury suffices for standing. A historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoy” This is about as silly as can be particularly since the finished building has yet to take form with its outside facade for anyone to really appraise the aesthetics. Otto von Bismark commented that “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” One could say the same things about buildings.
The Chief Justice also wrote in the dissent that he thinks the ballroom project is likely illegal. This undoubtedly sharped his sympathy with Hoagland’s injured aesthetics.
All of the naysayers seem small minded. For instance, Alison Hoagland told NPR’s Steve Inskeep, “…the administration is welcome to build a ballroom on the site. They could do it much better. They could make it lower. They could make it almost hidden. They could make it deferential to the White House and still have everything he needs.” Lady, that ship has long passed. Has no one ever been involved in a construction project? To stop it now as the lower courts wanted to would have been very costly – in effect a huge unfunded mandate by the courts.
Suddenly architectural athestics are important but when it came to Obama’s monstrosity in Chicago not one word from the Left.
Butt hurt is not a good look
WELCOME NEW PUPPETS!
Estovir is very busy trying to establish a new roster of puppets to replace identified puppets.
We can surmise that Estovir is a paid activist trying to make his quota of so many comments per day. And it’s serious work for him! Estovir, in fact, is giving his puppets more ‘likes’ than ever to reward the stress they’re suffering under scrutiny.
During what he hopes is just a fleeting period of scrutiny, Estovir is leaning heavily on anonymouses. One anonymous in particular stands out with its purple and green ink blot handle.
The following is a roster of new puppets starting today:
Wake Up
Glee
Michaeldix2f64102
Phantomboldly
J G Gordon
Mack
Henriettasducks
There will be many more new puppets before this day is over. New puppets are probably appearing while this notice is being processed.
Turley mentioned that John Roberts dissented but left out the part when he asserted Trump’s actions were “likely unlawful.” Dit the five Justices that supported Trump miss the fact that what trump was doing was illegal? The Justices can rely on standing and not the merits, but it makes a difference that the Supreme Court knowingly allows the President to break the law. They make rulings all the time outside the parameters of a case, doing whatever they want. Nobody was requesting that Presidents have immunity for official acts, but they gave it to Trump anyway.
He observed at the outset that Congress had explicitly prohibited construction on such federal property “without express authority of Congress.”
“That construction is likely unlawful,” he said, declaring that the usual appropriation for White House maintenance “likely does not authorize the President to use hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to tear down the East Wing and construct a ballroom in its stead.”–John Roberts
Did the five Justices that supported Trump miss the fact that what trump was doing was illegal?
It’s not likely that they “missed” the dissent’s language. Even putting aside that “likely” is not a synonym for “definitely,” can think of two possibilities off hand why they would not endorse it. There may be more.
First, it is possible the Court majority disagreed and concluded the actions were lawful. Remember, on any court, whatever a judge says in dissent is not a position or ruling of the court itself. Without a majority, judges are speaking for themselves as individuals, not for the court as an institution. Dissents have therefore been described by some people as merely symbolic.
Second, it is possible the Court majority did not consider that relevant, because jurisdiction is a threshold issue. The “case or controversy” language in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to deciding real, active, concrete legal disputes between opposing parties. That is a predicate to subject matter jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the Court has no authority to rule on the plaintiff’s claims.
#WeAreEstovir
Old Man is now Estovir’s lead puppet with the #WeAreEstovir hash tag proudly displayed.
Estovir loves Old Man so much he has no of intention of ever abandoning.
When the Chief Justice bucks the majority to say something is likely unlawful, there’s probably little doubt that it’s true. But there may be an Alito or Thomas that have convinced themselves, like Nixon, that anything the President does is legal.
If being illegal isn’t relevant. We’ve reached a sad state of affairs. SCOTIS has long shown its ability to decide issues before it. President’s violating the law used to be a threshold issue, until SCOTUS bestowed an unrequested immunity on the office. I wonder if there are any regrets.
Thank you for a civil response. I get so few of those.
When the Chief Justice bucks the majority to say something is likely unlawful, there’s probably little doubt that it’s true.
That is not true. Being Chief Justices gives him some additional administrative responsibilities, but he is still only one judge, and his legal analysis and vote has the same weight as each of the eight associate justices.
If being illegal isn’t relevant. We’ve reached a sad state of affairs.
It’s not irrelevant in all ways. But it can be irrelevant to the question of whether the Court has jurisdiction. Under the Constitution, the Court has no power to rule in cases where it lacks jurisdiction. Sometimes jurisdiction is absent in federal court, but present in a state-level court (or here, the DC courts). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Article III of that document puts limits on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. If a federal court lacks jurisdiction, and ignores that fact, then having it rule substantively in a case would be a far greater breach of the law than simply allowing the court with actual jurisdiction to decide the case.
SCOTIS has long shown its ability to decide issues before it.
Yes, but only if it has jurisdiction over the case itself.
Thank you for a civil response. I get so few of those.
Likewise.
#WeAreEstovir
I agree with the Chief Justice having a single vote with no additional weight. Still, his role means that he considers how the Court is viewed both historically and presently, with the goal of preserving legitimacy. Roberts has acted multiple times with the legacy of the Court in mind as he did this time.
Did the Court have jurisdiction to create Presidential immunity which isn’t in the Constitution and wasn’t an issue before the Court?
A person may suffer harm to a real interest, but for standing to exist, that interest must be one the law protects. For example, a zoning decision allowing a competitor into the neighborhood impacts the incumbent business’s interest in charging prices free from nearby competition. That is a real financial interest, and potential harm to financial interests is ordinarily enough for standing. However, the interest in charging prices without having to compete is not one the law protects, since the law generally seeks to protect competition. So, the incumbent business would not have standing, even though its finances are affected in a concrete way.
Other interests not protected for purposes of standing: ideological interests, and a private person’s interest in seeing someone prosecuted so as to gain an advantage in an upcoming election (e.g., through filing a private criminal complaint after the D.A. elects not to prosecute).
Apparently, aesthetic interests, while real and capable of being harmed, are not legally protected.
#WeAreEstovir
“Theodore Roosevelt authorized the original West Wing as a temporary executive office without seeking prior congressional approval, as it was framed as a renovation and modernization of the White House complex rather than a new construction project.” Encyclopedia Brittanica.
“Most presidents have made changes to the White House without seeking congressional approval, as the authority for such renovations typically lies with the executive branch. Notably, President Truman undertook a major reconstruction of the White House from 1949 to 1952, which was also done without prior congressional approval.”
Wikipedia; White House Historical Association
As should be expected, the WH lies. Truman did get Congressional approval.
Did you read this part Sally.
Wikipedia; White House Historical Association
Little thing called Wiki. Not a GOP run place,
Most presidents have made changes to the White House without seeking congressional approval…
=====
While this point ⬆️ is well taken, the magnitude of the “change” matters. There is a point that the “change” becomes actionable. Painting the bedroom a different color is change that is not an issue. Tearing down an entire WING and replacing it with a 90k SQ FT Ballroom is change that I think could be an issue. There is a point ⬆️ that making changes needs more than the Presidential stamp. It would have been prudent of Trump to at least try to seek consensus. Give it the good old college try, not difficult.
Turley: you are SUCH a MAGA spinner of tall tales Trump did NOT “win” a “major victory” at all–the 5-4 ruling punted the question of the legality of tearing down the East Wing to build an unnecessary and unwanted ballroom–the Leo Leonard Federalist Society majority held that historic preservationists couldn’t prove a distinct injury, so they didn’t have standing. And, it was only a pause in the injunction that was supposed to stop construction (of course Trump ignored the injunction)–the merits of the case will get briefed. Meanwhile, after the SCOTUS decides that the ballroom is illegal, it will be a fait accompli. The Court did NOT hold that Trump was right or that what he did was legal, and even Chief Justice Roberts said what he did was probably illegal. But letting Trump get away with his authoritarian bullsh(t is exactly why the Leo Leonard Federalist Society shoved Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh onto the high court.
Here’s what “All About Lawyer” says was the basis of the lawsuit–which was NOT “aesthetics”, a feeble argument Turley tries to make as a paid MAGA pundit to trivialize the outrageousness of Trump treating our White House like it belongs to him to be done with as he pleases:
“Violations of the National Capital Planning Act; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Administrative Procedure Act; ultra vires presidential action exceeding statutory authority; Separation of Powers (congressional authority over federal property)”
What is glaringly absent in today’s little MAGA-purhased puff piece is any analysis by Turley of whether what the fat slob did is legal–can the temporary occupant of the White House tear down all or any part of it, without Congressional authorization, with the consent of the National Trust For Historic Preservation, and build a vanity project? Most Americans say: “NO”. Most of us strongly oppose it. And, Trump has lied a lot about the ballroom, just like he lies about everything, claiming it would all be covered by donations (from oligarchs who do, of course, get generous government contracts), that the cost would be $200 million–it is three times that now, and that prior presidents have been wanting a ballroom for years–not true.
I do agree with the issue of aesthetics–this ugly monstrosity will dwarf the White House and change forever the look intended by the architects. I sincerely hope that the next president does the right thing–pry off all of the tacky gold embellishments in the Oval Office and elsewhere, take down the Presidential Walk of Fame, pry up the pavers and restore Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden, take Trump’s name off anywhere it appears on the campus where the JFK Center For Performing Arts is located, and, hopefully, tear down the gilded ballroom and replace it with a replica of the East Wing or office space, meeting rooms, etc.. I hope they scrape off all of the paint from the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, and get rid of the tacky statues Trump has installed all over the place. If the Trump Arch is built–it needs to come down, too. Trump is also threatening to paint the granite of the Old Executive Office Building, which will also forever change the intended look of the building, cost millions, and require repainting–all for no good reason. Granite was used so that painting and maintenance would not be needed.
What would Washington be like if every time there is a new President he just treated our property like it belongs to him–to do with whatever he wants? Think about that.
Sorry ano, Prez Trump still won, another with our nation n
Thank goodness far-left Fascist Democrats didn’t have the last word in Paris in 1887. This sounds just like their cacophonous squawking today.
“We wish – authors, painters, sculptors, architects, enthusiastic lovers of beauty, which has hitherto been respected in Paris – to protest with all our energy, and with all the indignation of which we are capable, in the name of art and French history now menaced, against the erection in the heart of our capital of the useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower… For the Eiffel Tower, which even the mercantile United States would not countenance, surely dishonours Paris… No- thing further is wanting to prove the justice of what we say than to imagine for an instant this tower dominating Paris, like a gigantic black factory chimney, crushing with its barbarous mass Notre-Dame, the Sainte-Chapelle, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of the Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe; all our monuments humiliated, all our architecture shrunken, and disappearing affrighted in this bewildering dream. And during twenty years i.e. the length of the concession we shall see, stretching over the entire city… like a black blot, the odious shadow of the odious column built up of riveted iron plates…”
The Anonymous above is Estovir. Note that purple and green ink blot.
factually.co:
7. Bottom line and outstanding factual gaps
Across the supplied analyses, the established fact is that the State Ballroom renovation is being portrayed as privately funded and not an explicit congressional appropriation, with reported costs from $200 million to $250 million and prominent personal and corporate donor involvement [1] [2]. Key unresolved factual gaps remain: a single definitive budget, itemized donor lists, and clarifying documentation about federal responsibilities for security and maintenance. Those omissions are central to whether the public can fully assess accountability, influence, and long-term fiscal implications for the White House as a public institution [3].
What else did chatgpt/gemini/claude tell you?
Facing a Republican wipeout in November, on Tuesday House Speaker Mike Johnson begged God to “rapture him up” before the midterm elections.
Witnesses in the US Capitol reportedly saw the Louisiana lawmaker on his knees in the House cloakroom, beseeching the Almighty to “put me out of my misery.”
“I don’t want to be in the minority,” he prayed, chocking back tears. “I’m a Republican. We hate minorities.”
“You’ve seen the polls, and O Lord, are we screwed,” he added. “Please call me up to Heaven like you did to Lindsey Graham.”
According to onlookers, the normally taciturn deity thundered, “What makes you think that asshat’s in Heaven?”
Since Trump was elected Mike has spent almost every day on his knees.
Make of that what you will.
Can we assume you mounted him?
@JT isn’t it time we look at Roberts? Is he being blackmailed or does he simply live in terror of himself and his family subjected to threat by the leaders of the Democrats. “There will be accountability with the next administration, if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.” –Hakeem Jeffries (minority speaker of the house).
While there’s been undoubted question three SCOTUS Associate Judges are clearly anti-democracy, he also flipped (almost invisibly) during the Gorsach, Kavanaugh, and the attack by a known Associate Judge and her team through NYT leakage of both internal discussion and doxing home addresses of “conservative” judges – and failure to admonish those who were doing it after a forensic investigation returned highly probable, if not actual clear evidence.
Note: If the resultant Kavanaugh assassination attempt had been successful, we would now have a 6-4 SCOTUS autocracy eliminating both the legislative and executive branches of judical royalty with “social” masks.
The Garland approach to grant ANY judge executive and legislative authority and write or rewrite any existing law (legislation) while empowering the Executive branch (puppeteered by the Domestic Policy Council) to override law through Executive Policy has virtually eliminated democracy in the United States.
Roberts went from being the moderating Chief Justice to a clear deep state progressive anti-democracy power broker (e.g., Pence, Garland, Bolton, Esper, Coats, Milley, Austin, . . .) at a critical time, and his current position is now virtually a lighthouse of elite supremacy masquerading as “representatives of the workers as socialist advocates”
Perhaps Leonard Leo and his Federalist Society cronies didn’t offer a large enough compensation. Robert’s vote didn’t matter which is why he could fire this shot across Leo’s bow to do better next time. We shall see if Roberts gets a giant RV as a gift.
WakeUp is new Estovir puppet.
Wake Up is Estovir with a new puppet.
Democrat obstructionism. Obama’s Presidential Library has a giant paperweight in the middle of Chicago, presumably to keep his ego from blowing away, but Trump isn’t allowed to do anything.
Au contraire! He’s allowed to:
1) Start a forever war in Iran
2) Expand the national debt
3) Cause the national average for gas prices to be above $4.00 for the entire month of August for the first time in history
4) Cover up the Epstein files
5) Move Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum security prison
6) Self-enrich by billions through cryptocurrency – something he once called a sham
7) Weaken our military positioning globally
8) Impose so many tariffs and trade wars that he decimated American farms to the point that he’s now sending them subsidy checks
9) isolate us from our closest allies
And your point is?
The point is on his head.
My responses, point by point:
1) The Iranians were already engaging in a forever war. They got an answer.
2) Hilarious, coming from Democrats.
3) Biden had 9% inflation in just one year.
4) Trump covering up Democrat orgies? Seriously?
5) You’re just mad Ghislaine got the bunk above you.
6) Sam Bankman-Fried was a Democrat donor.
7) The party of the Afghanistan bugout can’t talk.
8) Our “trade partners” engaged in unfair trade practices for years. Time’s up.
9) Isolate us from our closest parasites. Yes, I voted for that and will, again.
Diogenes – good real-world responses to the fantasy-world troll.
#WeAreEstovir
Old Man is Estovir displaying solidarity with himself with the #WeAreEstovir hash tag.
Diogenes is Estovir, of course. He’s supposed to be displaying his #WeAreEstovir hash tag as a sign of solidarity with himself.
#WeAreEstovir
I wonder what the next lawsuit is brought against the ballroom. This is not going to stop. Those that oppose this ballroom will hang their hat on any potential nail. Aesthetics aside, The ballroom is needed and every future President will make use of this room. It is a win for the American people and office of the President.
I look forward to the President who bulldozes this monstrous edifice to the ego of a man intent on destroying America.
In fact, given the Supreme Court rulings, I would say a President would be entitled to go in with a field ripper and tear up every Trump golf course in the US and level every Trump country club building as a national security matter.
“Build me a room!” said fat King Rump,
“I want gold and marble galore!”
“There should be a place where all can gather!”
“And pay honor to the King they adore!”
“But sir,” said the builder, “there is no room,”
“Fake news!” the orange king relayed,
“We’ll rip of the wing where the First Lady works,”
“Natalie doesn’t want her around anyway…”
“Is all this legal?” asked the King’s Chancellor,
“We’re being sued with cases in the docket!”
“Not to worry!” bellowed the orange King Rump.
“I’ve got most of the Supreme Court in my pocket.”
“I’m offended!” says one disgusting troll.
“Let’s go to court!” say far-left ideologues.
“We didn’t object one bit over Obama spending taxpayer money on his vanity basketball court!” say leftwing hypocrites.
“Find a panel of judges that hate Trump as much as we do!” order the plaintiffs attorneys.
“Trump is guilty of crimes against humanity for building a ballroom, when we prefer tents and Port-a-Johns!” say Democrats.
“Go f yourselves!” says a fair Supreme Court to crybaby Democrat Fascists.
The Anonymous above, with the purple and green ink blot, is Estovir, plus Dustoff below.
Poor crybaby…