SCOTUS allows Ballroom Construction, Roberts says project 'likely unlawful'

Friday, September 04, 2026

The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to press on with his White House ballroom project -- over a strident objection from Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing.

Posted by LampLighter at 09:30 AM | 9 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

He has a lifetime appointment, no boss (except Trump), and no election. There is exactly one lever in the Constitution aimed at him. Pull it. Write your member of Congress tonight: actionnetwork.org/letters/tell ...

[image or embed]
-- Scott Dworkin (@dworkin.bsky.social) 5:56 PM Â· Sep 3, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article ...

... The justices' 5-4 ruling maintains the high court's hold on a federal appeals court ruling that called for a halt to the project after concluding it lacked approval from Congress.

In an unsigned order Monday, the Supreme Court's majority said a historic preservation group that sued over the project appeared to lack legal standing, while national security concerns favored allowing the construction to continue. The majority did not opine on whether the project is legal.

Writing for the dissenters, Roberts said the project is "likely unlawful." ...

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-09-01 01:41 PM | Reply

"Likely unlawful"

The corrupt court once again bows to the pedophile in chief.

How about taking a stand for the rule of law? Nah, they might get a sharply worded troth social post directed at them.

John Roberts court legacy will be corruption with lack of a spine.

#2 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-09-01 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#2

The Roberts' Court may also call Pres Trump's threatened demolition of The Kennedy Center "likely unlawful."

That's sure to stop Pres Trump from going through with it.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-09-01 02:38 PM | Reply

I thought the courts job was to decide constitutionality?

#4 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-09-02 07:21 AM | Reply

Probably illegal, but they'll let him keep doing it, anyway.
SCOTUS' response to Hair Fuhrer writ large.

#5 | Posted by morris at 2026-09-04 03:02 PM | Reply

They forgot that they decided the king cannot break the law.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2026-09-04 05:23 PM | Reply

Roberts is s*&^. Every time he whines that people rightly view his court as a sham I laugh and hope he has the day he deserves.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2026-09-04 07:47 PM | Reply

I thought the courts job was to decide constitutionality?

#4 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-09-02 07:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

They do. STFU raetard.

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-09-04 10:56 PM | Reply

I thought the courts job was to decide constitutionality?

Yes, when that issue is before the Court. Here it was not. The issue was whether to stay an injunction while litigation proceeded below. The Court said yes. The Constitution played no role.

Remember, Article III jurisdiction, "cases and controversies," is broader than just the Constitution.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2026-09-04 11:50 PM | Reply