Supreme Court Amicus Brief in White House Ballroom Case

The Society for the Rule of Law has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in National Park Service, et al., v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, urging the Court to keep in place the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s preliminary injunction against construction of the White House ballroom. The brief contends that the Administration’s continued construction of the ballroom violates the Constitution and federal law. Quoting Justice Scalia, it emphasizes this case’s significance to the Rule of Law: “The principles at stake here are timeless and fundamental. The Court should ‘take [the] opportunity to affirm the primacy of the Constitution’s enduring principles over the politics of the moment,’ NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 614–15 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring)—no matter how strongly the President wishes for a ballroom.” Opposing the Administration’s application for a stay of the preliminary injunction, the amicus brief uses four primary arguments.

First, the Administration’s application claims authority beyond the power of the Executive Branch.

Government buildings—especially those of enduring historical and symbolic power—belong to the American people and not the President. The Constitution explicitly vests control over public property and spending in Congress, and the Executive Branch cannot invade an area of exclusive Congressional power without legislative authorization.

Second, the Administration’s invokes a national-security rationale that does not justify deviating from federal law.

…the laws passed by Congress pursuant to its Constitutional authority must be respected, no matter how urgent or compelling purported safety, security, or other policy concerns may be. There is no national security exception to the rule of law. Yet the Executive’s application urges this Court to overlook any noncompliance with the law because it will supposedly face irreparable harm if held to statutory limits. Even if its concerns were credited, they must be addressed to Congress.

Third, by attempting to introduce significant new evidence before the Supreme Court, the Administration transgresses the fact-finding authority of district courts in the judicial review process.

…as Marbury v. Madison made clear, Article III designates this Court one of review, not of first view. Yet the Executive’s application ignores the deference owed to fact finding and discretionary judgments made by the courts below, attempting to introduce a trove of new evidence in this Court. This tactic flouts the Court’s constitutional role as a final appellate court and runs roughshod over longstanding practice.

Finally, the amicus brief criticizes the Administration’s attempts to bypass judicial review and Congressional accountability by rushing ahead with construction and presenting the other branches of government with a fait accompli.

…Throughout this Project, the Executive has attempted to bypass both Congressional involvement and Judicial review. First, the Executive rushed ahead with the project, hoping to outrace the judiciary. And now the Executive claims it has won the race, arguing the construction may in fact be irreversible—and that the Court must reward its strategic behavior by allowing it to continue down the path of no return. That claim is a compelling reason to permit the district court’s injunction to remain in place. That injunction is essential to preserve federal court jurisdiction and to maintain the status quo pending orderly judicial review.

Read the full brief here. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

# # #