Trump’s Position in the White House Ballroom Case Reflects His General Resistance to Judicial Review (opinion)
The Justice Department argued last week that even if President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project is illegal, federal courts don’t have the power to stop it. This claim was consistent with Trump’s general stance on judicial review, which he sees as legitimate only when he is allowed to do what he wants.
Last October, Trump demolished the White House’s planned East Wing. to change place With a building that is 60 percent larger in square meters and three times larger in cubic volume than the Executive Residence. In March, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the project required congressional approval because “no statute can come close to giving the President the authority he claims.”
On Friday, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth persistently The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit will invalidate Leon’s preliminary injunction. Because the project is “well on track” and serves national security interests, Roth said it would be an “abuse of discretion” to order a halt to the project, even if the appeals court agreed with Leon on the merits.
Leon because Congress controls federal property and won’t approve a plan like Trump’s reigned“The ballroom construction project must be halted until Congress authorizes its completion.” Roth reversed that logic, saying only an act of Congress could thwart Trump’s will.
The Justice Department took a similar position in defending Trump’s invocation of the law. Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to justify the transfer of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in Salvador. Roth and others stated that Trump’s use of the AEA “will not stand up to scrutiny.” said DC Circuit in March 2025. In deciding who qualifies as a “foreign enemy” subject to extrajudicial deportation, they said When he faced a federal judge two days later, Trump was making “national security decisions not subject to judicial second-guessing.”
The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed and held that EEA detainees had a due process right to challenge their treatment through habeas corpus petitions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit also rejected the government’s position and ruled that there was “no invasion or predatory attack” that would justify Trump invoking the EEA.
Trump has likewise claimed that he has the unreviewable authority to deploy National Guard members to cities across the country. 9th Circuit and 7th Circuit The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that Trump likely misinterpreted the law he relied on.
Trump also didn’t think courts should give second thought to outright suspensions of security clearances for attorneys at firms who harass him by representing clients or cases he despises. But while individualized decisions regarding security clearances are not reviewable, Leon reigned Last year, Trump’s widespread retaliation against unpopular law firms violated the First Amendment.
Courts have also consistently ruled against Trump’s assertion of sweeping tariff powers. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He claimed that this law gave him the authority to completely rewrite the tariff program approved by Congress based on a unilateral declaration of an “emergency” created by an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad.
Since the Supreme Court concluded that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs at all, there was no need to address the question of whether an “unusual and extraordinary threat” existed when the President said there was. But Trump’s reaction to the decision reflected his general complaint about the courts getting in his way.
Trump says Democrats voting against tariffs are ‘a disgrace to our nation’ in questionbecause “they will automatically vote no.” He added that the two Trump-nominated judges in the majority were “an embarrassment to their families” because they portrayed themselves as “idiots and lapdogs for RINOs and radical left Democrats.”
Trump still seething with eagerness to demonstrate their independence reported a month later, such judges “openly disrespect the Presidents who nominated them.” Trump briefly considers judges should do As long as they are with him, they will be independent.
© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Post Trump’s Position on White House Ballroom Case Reflects His General Resistance to Judicial Review appeared for the first time reason.com.
