Chief justice dissents on ballroom construction: ‘No victory for separation of powers’

Chief Justice John Roberts broke with his conservative colleagues in a Supreme Court decision Monday that allowed construction on the proposed White House ballroom to continue, saying the ruling upsets the separation of powers.

Roberts, joined by the three liberal justices, contended that the majority’s reasoning likely infringed on Congress’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the nation’s capital.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote in a six-page dissenting opinion.

The chief justice noted that the $400 million ballroom project was “likely unlawful” because Congress had not expressly approved funds for it, pushing back on the Trump administration’s argument that it fell within the scope of the president’s authority to conduct routine maintenance and upkeep of the White House.

“That appropriation of a couple million dollars for ordinary Executive Residence maintenance and repairs 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,” Roberts wrote, referring to the nearly $2.5 million set aside in 2024.

The divided Supreme Court did not weigh the legality of the construction, concluding only that a preservationist group likely lacked standing to sue over one member’s “mere offense, disagreement, or distaste” for the project.

The decision lifted a lower court block on the above-ground portion of the work, allowing the administration to proceed with the sprawling addition that it now argues is critical to national security.

Roberts disagreed with the majority’s finding, arguing that the member’s “decades-long membership” in the National Trust for Historic Preservation and commitment to that cause was enough to meet the legal threshold for standing.

“She has not simply alleged ‘distress at or disagreement with’ the ballroom’s construction,” he wrote. “She instead has alleged that the ballroom’s construction would damage what for her is a concrete and particularized interest in physically viewing, appreciating, and studying a historic building as it is.”

The chief justice also reasoned that this case was different than prior cases in which taxpayers were denied standing simply because they disliked a certain federal policy.

“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—[Alison] Hoagland is not just any person,” Roberts wrote, referring to the National Trust member.

The chief justice had previously allowed the construction to continue on a temporary basis while the court considered whether to intervene.