With more than a dozen exclamation points, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon for the District of Columbia, a George W. Bush appointee, pulled the plug on Donald Trump’s illegal, cheesy, and poorly designed ballroom project financed by uber-rich elites and corporations. (This is a judge who loves his punctuation.) Leon’s opening line was telling: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” It went downhill for Trump from there.
Leon made clear that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the suit, “is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”
Leon found that the Constitution was determinative. “The Property Clause vests Congress with complete authority over public lands. See U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (‘The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States’),” Leon wrote. That means Congress has sole authority over properties like the White House.
However, Trump has more problems than just the Property Clause. The Appropriations Clause (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”) and the District Clause (giving Congress exclusive power to legislate over the District of Columbia) leave Trump with zero authority to tear down and rebuild the White House. Leon pointed out that even the Trump regime’s lawyers “declined to argue that they have any inherent constitutional authority to build the ballroom.”
That should be the end of it. However, Leon also examined several statutes Trump’s side raised. They do not help Trump’s audacious power grab either. Trump hangs his hat on 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(l), but that merely authorizes Trump to use funds for “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.” Plainly, that doesn’t cover THIS. (Leon’s retort to the argument that this statute provides the legal basis the $400 million construction project is priceless: “Please!”) Since a mere $2.45 million is congressionally allocated for these purposes, Trump had to resort to a “convoluted funding scheme” that does not amount to a congressional authorization for fundraising.
The next statute also slams the door on the Versailles ballroom. “Congress has affirmatively prohibited the ‘erect[ion]’ of ‘[a] building or structure’ ‘on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.’ 40 U.S.C. § 8106,” Leon wrote. He then knocked down the government’s specious argument for why this statute does not apply:
Defendants argue that § 8106 should not be read to constrain the President or limit construction at the White House absent a clear statement. Please! A clear statement rule makes sense when Congress is legislating in an area where the President exercises overlapping constitutional authority.... But Defendants here have disclaimed that the President has any inherent constitutional authority over construction at the White House and have conceded that Congress’s constitutional authority over federal property is “exclusive.”
A separate statute that bars on national parks any “buildings over $1,000 dollars without express authority of Congress” does not help Trump on his $400 million project, Leon ruled. Likewise, the National Park Service Organic Act, which give the NPS authority “to promote and regulate” the park system, has nothing to do with building construction.
In weighing the equities on injunctive relief, Leon had no trouble determining that the imminent harm to the NPS (and the public) justifies halting the project. “It has demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm in the form of ongoing construction of a ballroom that would, in its own words, ‘overshadow[]’ the White House and disrupt the appearance of a historic and cultural icon,” Leon found. “The National Trust has shown that Defendants are making these irreversible changes without statutory or constitutional authority. While the National Trust would be deeply harmed in the absence of an injunction, the Government ‘cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice.’”
In one last gasp to rescue his monument to poor taste, Trump tried to waive around a claim of “national security.” Leon offers another “Please!” retort:
Please! While I take seriously the Government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the President himself, the existence of a “large hole” beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the President’s own making! Bald assertions of “national security” cannot excuse the Government’s failure to follow the law and then insulate those failures from judicial review.
(The White House has been blabbing about the location of a bunker under the East Wing/ballroom site, itself a glaring breach of confidentiality, but he can presumably install a covered entry way of some type.)
Finally, Leon reminded Trump he has a perfect alternative: Go to Congress for authorization and funding. Sure. Let the MAGA lackeys in the House and Senate decide whether to spend $400 million on this eyesore. If they rubber-stamp it, that would be one more reason to flip both houses — which would then allow Democrats to nix funding for this abomination.
Leon’s thorough and snarky put down of each preposterous argument is precisely the sort of undaunted, unflinching, and unequivocal response Trump’s increasingly ludicrous legal arguments requires. Trump’s determination to pursue patently absurd positions — and his lawyers’ willingness to give him thumbs up — point to the essential role of the federal courts in halting the slide into an autocracy run by the whims of a pathological narcissist. Fortunately, Leon, like so many other judges (appointed by presidents of both parties), remains a check against Trump’s mad and unconstitutional scheme.
This might not be the most important legal defeat Trump has suffered, but many Americans may find it among the most satisfying. It is their White House, not Trump’s.
While millions of us rejoice at Judge Leon's punctuation and reasoning, what are we to do when the Beast just goes 'fuck you' and the bulldozers, rebar and vulgarity all continue unabated? Only bailiffs can enforce a judgment by throwing somebody in the clapper on the spot -- and their paychecks are signed by...guess who? Todd Blanche's DOJ!
Months ago, Judge Luttig pointed out this grotesque situation that nobody ever really thought much about before. What happens when the Bailiff walks up to the White House and yells "COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP"?
Many thanks and bravos to Judge Leon!! !!!! This is just the kind of straight talk we need to hear from members of Congress and from foreign leaders. !!!!!