I was sipping my coffee and reading the news when I came across this story about the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s massive ballroom at the White House. Folks, it’s a doozy. The court’s 5-4 decision backed Trump’s project, and now it’s being used to shut down lawsuits against his other construction plans for the nation’s capital. I mean, who doesn’t love a good ballroom, right? But seriously, this decision has renewed a debate over a legal doctrine tied to an abandoned California ski resort and crocodiles in Egypt. Yes, you read that right – crocodiles in Egypt.
The Supreme Court’s decision basically said that a historic preservationist couldn’t sue over the ballroom for “aesthetic” reasons. And now the Trump administration is using that decision to push through other projects, like a 250-foot arch on the Potomac River and a remodel of a public golf course in Washington, DC. I guess you could say they’re on a roll. But not everyone is happy about it, of course. The Justice Department is still dealing with lawsuits over the Reflecting Pool and an iconic Gilded Age government building near the White House.
The challenge with all this is that “aesthetic standing” is a pretty subjective thing. I mean, who gets to decide what’s pretty or not? Robert Pushaw, a professor at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, said that “aesthetic injury is a gut call.” And that’s because aesthetics are a matter of personal taste. So, it’s hard to say who has the right to sue over something that’s just not their cup of tea. But the Supreme Court’s decision does indicate where five conservative justices are headed, and it might make it harder for plaintiffs to establish standing in future cases.
Now, I know some of you might be thinking, “Big Elephant, what about the crocodiles?” Well, it turns out that the idea of aesthetic standing was introduced in a case about a Disney ski resort in Sequoia National Park. And in that case, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that “aesthetic and environmental wellbeing” are important ingredients of the quality of life. But the plaintiff in that case didn’t have standing to sue, and the ski resort was later abandoned. Fast forward to today, and we have Chief Justice John Roberts citing a 1992 decision about foreign aid for a project that wildlife groups feared would affect the habitat of the endangered Nile crocodile.
The court’s decision in that case said that the desire to “use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes” is a cognizable interest for purposes of standing. But with the court’s rejection of the ballroom lawsuit, Roberts wrote that it’s now the case that “I want to look at a crocodile” can answer the question of standing, but “I want to look at the White House” cannot. It’s all a bit confusing, if you ask me.
So, what does it all mean? Well, plaintiffs challenging Trump’s projects will just need to more fully articulate the ways the challenged action harms or will harm them. And Trump and his supporters have argued that the theory of standing raised by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the ballroom case would have allowed virtually anyone to stop a government building project just because they didn’t like the design. But experts say there’s still plenty of room for those challenges to continue despite the high court’s ballroom decision.
In the end, it’s all about who gets to decide what’s pretty and what’s not. And if you ask me, it’s a bit of a joke. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to build a massive ballroom at the White House in the first place? But hey, that’s just my two cents. And as I finish my coffee, I’m left thinking that this whole thing is just a big mess. But hey, at least it’s entertaining, right? 🙄
Armchair patriot. Believes in the free market, cold beer, and that there’s always a guy named George behind every CNN segment.
Former remote-throwing champion turned #1 couch commentator on liberal panic in the media. Born in Texas (or so his mug says), he earned a degree in Fake Newsology & Beer Philosophy from YouTube University.
