WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts this year led a majority of his colleagues in rejecting President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose sweeping tariffs, redefine birthright citizenship and remove a leader of the Federal Reserve.
In those rulings, Roberts joined with the court’s three liberal justices and at least one other conservative justice.
But when it came to the 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom that Trump is building, Roberts was the lone conservative who voted to pause the project while it’s being challenged in court.
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote in his dissent of the court’s 5-4 decisionto let construction continue.
It was only the third time since Trump’s return to office that Roberts disagreed
with all of his fellow conservatives on an emergency appeal to decide whether an administration policy could move forward until a legal fight was resolved.
As with the ballroom, both of the previous cases involved spending matters.
Last year, Roberts was the sole conservative who voted against letting the administration cancel $65 million in teacher training grants.
That happened again when the five other conservatives – but not Roberts and the three liberals − saidthe administration could slash hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of health research funding.
In his dissent on the ballroom construction, Roberts wrote that the project – which has not been approved by Congress – probably infringes on lawmakers’ ability to control federal spending and to regulate federal property.
"Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers," he wrote.
While the ability of the administration to get around Congress’ control of spending was a theme in all three interim rulings in which Roberts dissented, the ballroom fight also raised a question about whether the case even belonged in court.
Roberts disagreed with the majority of his colleagues about whether the National Trust for Historic Preservation – which objects to the design of the ballroom – can meet the legal standard for showing it would be sufficiently harmed by the project.
“Roberts is usually with the conservatives on this,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school and a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said of the court’s interpretation of what’s called “standing.” “But he was willing to accept an aesthetic injury – which always has been regarded as sufficient for standing – while the conservative justices were not. Ultimately it means that even if the president’s actions as to the ballroom are unconstitutional, no one will have standing to sue to challenge them.”
Roberts emphasized the “distinctive nature” of the White House as an “iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture.”
“While it is true that nearly every government action will offend someone somehow,” Roberts wrote in response to a point from the majority, “not every government action will interfere in a particular way with someone’s documented interest in viewing a particular historic building.”
The majority of justices, by contrast, said the court has “repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste” is not the legitimate basis for a lawsuit.
The majority also emphasized the administration’s concern that halting the project would jeopardize the security of the White House grounds and make it harder to protect the president.
In a footnote to his dissent, Roberts wrote that the underground work on the project – which lower courts had allowed to proceed – addressed the government’s security concerns.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, called Roberts “a shadow of his former self.”
“This was the person that George W. Bush nominated to the Supreme Court because of his robust understanding of presidential power in the national security context, yet Roberts dismissed the government's national security concerns in a perfunctory footnote,” Blackman wrote on a legal blog.
The greatest criticism Roberts has received from the right since joining the court more than two decades ago came after he joined a majority that upheld President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act in 2012 over the dissents of his four conservative colleagues. And in the court’s blockbuster 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the chief justice supported additional restrictions on abortion but declined to go so far as overturning the 1973 precedent.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why Roberts was sole Supreme Court conservative against Trump ballroom
