MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
The Supreme Court is letting President Trump continue construction of his White House ballroom project, at least for now. On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted temporary relief from a judge's ruling that would have stopped above-ground construction. That gives the Supreme Court more time to consider an emergency appeal from the administration, but it also gives Trump more time in his race to finish the project. For analysis of this decision, we've called Kim Wehle. She is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore with expertise in constitutional law. Professor Wehle, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us.
KIM WEHLE: Oh, great to be here.
MARTIN: So Chief Justice John Roberts issued a one-sentence order with no explanation of his thinking. Is there anything that you take from such a brief document?
WEHLE: Very disappointing, frankly, as a matter of the rule of law. This was an unnecessary thing for the court to do. This is already resolved by the actual text of the Constitution and a statute dating back to 1912. Donald Trump should have gone to Congress, and Congress is still there and could authorize this.
MARTIN: The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the original suit seeking to block construction, says the administration is trying to, quote, "outrun judicial review," unquote, by ramming this project through faster than the courts can weigh. And it is a fact that the White House is pushing workers hard to finish this. They're working many hours a day, as we understand it. It argued that the Supreme Court would be rewarding that tactic if it sides with the administration. Do you think the justices will find that a compelling argument?
WEHLE: Well, it looks like Chief Justice Roberts found that a compelling argument, and it is sort of a buzz in and around this topic. The administration's changed its justification many times, and that is what the solicitor general has said recently - it's 65% done, and so, you know, our bulldozing not only through the White House grounds but through the rule of law is so good and so complete that it's almost too late to put the genie back in the bottle. There's no legal justification for that kind of argument. Harm is harm, and the courts exist to put things back in the status quo to the extent to which it's feasible.
MARTIN: So, you know, to that point, the administration argued that stopping above-ground work on the ballroom would, quote, "threaten the security and safety of the president," unquote, because it would affect construction of a military complex in the East Wing. But there is substantial reporting that there have been fortifications at the White House since 9/11, the suggestion being that that just isn't true. So does the truth or falsity of the White House's statements about this play a role here? Like, who is the finder of fact here? Do the facts matter here?
WEHLE: Not at this point legally because the Property Clause of Article 4 of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the authority over federal property. Again, there's a law, a statute that says that no structure should be erected on a federal property without Congress' express authorization. So the lower court said, listen, our hands are tied. This should go to Congress.
And so it's really puzzling that the chief justice would find it compelling somehow that there's irreparable harm to the administration and that they would win on the merits. I mean, this is really Justice Roberts allowing Donald Trump to outmaneuver the rule of law and to run out the clock because his argument will be, listen, it's too late. You know, it's a fait accompli. What's done is done.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, the administration has repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court asking for emergency rulings. It's our understanding more than any other president. Do you have a sense of how successful this tactic has been for the White House?
WEHLE: Yeah. I have a law review article coming out in the spring on this. It's over 20 times last year, and the chief justice or the court, the majority, has allowed Donald Trump to outmaneuver the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Appropriations Clause, allowed, you know, DOGE to take Privacy Act information that's protected under statutory law. This is really a problem writ large, and the American public needs to focus on what to do about this Supreme Court that's not upholding the Constitution for Donald Trump.
MARTIN: That is University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle. She's an expert in constitutional law. Professor Wehle, thank you.
WEHLE: Thanks for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
