Crocodile Case Shadows Supreme Court's Ballroom Ruling

A 5-4 Supreme Court ruling rejecting aesthetic standing in the White House ballroom fight is reshaping lawsuits over Trump's other DC projects.

Five conservative justices, over the objection of Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberals, barred a historic preservationist from suing over President Trump's $400 million White House ballroom on aesthetic grounds. In an unsigned 5-4 decision issued Monday, the court wrote that "mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury." Because the case arrived on the emergency docket, it technically has limited precedential value, but the Trump administration immediately moved to leverage it against other pending lawsuits over the president's construction agenda in the nation's capital.

The Justice Department quickly inserted the Supreme Court order into lower courts reviewing the proposed 250-foot arch on the banks of the Potomac and a remodel of a public golf course in Washington, DC. CNN reports that a federal court reviewing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool case ordered a new round of briefing on Friday in light of the ballroom ruling. At stake is the scope of "aesthetic standing," the doctrine allowing Americans to sue over changes that deprive them of the enjoyment of seeing a landscape or even an endangered animal.

The doctrine traces to the 1970s case Sierra Club v. Morton, challenging a Disney ski resort in Sequoia National Park, where Justice Potter Stewart wrote that "aesthetic and environmental wellbeing" are "important ingredients of the quality of life." In his dissent, Roberts also cited a 1992 case over foreign aid feared to harm the habitat of the endangered Nile crocodile, in which the court said the desire to observe an animal species is "undeniably a cognizable interest" for standing. Roberts quipped that "I want to look at a crocodile" can answer the "what's it to you?" question, but "I want to look at the White House" cannot.

Plaintiffs say the fight is not over. According to CNN, attorney Nicolas Sansone of Public Citizen Litigation Group, lead lawyer challenging the arch, said his case "presents meaningfully different facts." George Washington University professor Sara Bronin said the ruling "makes it harder, but not impossible" for preservationists to use litigation. Supporters, including Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, argued activists cannot "manufacture standing from personal displeasure." Pepperdine law professor Robert Pushaw told CNN that five conservative justices might later reject aesthetic injuries outright or limit them to environmental cases.