Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Why Can’t the Supreme Court Tell Trump No?

By Joyce Vance, Aug 31, 2026

I suppose the title for this piece is a purely rhetorical question at this point. But the Court’s inability to tell Trump no may end up being the most concerning feature of his two terms in office. It’s as if the Justices, or five to seven of them, depending on the case, can’t summon a collective recollection of the constitutional system of checks and balances that is the foundation for the legal system they sit at the apex of. It’s another important night of opinion reading here at Civil Discourse. Tonight, we’re back to the Supreme Court.

Today, oops, they did it again. Five justices told Donald Trump all was forgiven for tearing down the historic East Wing of the White House, and he could carry on with his ballroom project while litigation about its legality proceeded. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined a dissent written by the Chief Justice.

Tonight, I planned to play legal catch-up. Since early last week, I’ve been running a list of cases and developments we must cover, but that I haven’t been able to get to with everything else going on. I had planned to write about all of them tonight and get us up to speed. Most importantly, I planned to write about Liam Ramos, the five-year-old seized by ICE as he left school with his Spider-Man backpack and blue bunny-ears hat. Liam and his dad have now been deported to Mexico. He should be at home with his mom, in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, getting ready for the start of school.

He should not have spent months in the horrible conditions at a detention facility in Dilley, Texas. But Donald Trump’s government saw fit to use the resources of the United States to cut off his future here. Don’t you feel safer knowing that? They told us they would be deporting the “worst of the worst.”

There will be a time, this week, I hope, for all of these topics. But tonight, we’re going to turn our attention to the Supreme Court’s decision this afternoon about Trump’s ballroom. Before we review the opinions, let’s remember how we got here:

On March 31, 2026, Judge Richard Leon granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined any further construction of the ballroom above ground, but permitted work to continue on what the court was told was a “new below-ground military installation.” Any work “strictly necessary” to protect the White House or the President and his staff could take place as well. Judge Leon held that the president is the “steward” of the White House and not the “owner,” and that Trump had no statutory authority to proceed, absent authorization from Congress.

On March 31, 2026, Judge Richard Leon granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined any further construction of the ballroom above ground, but permitted work to continue on what the court was told was a “new below-ground military installation.” Any work “strictly necessary” to protect the White House or the President and his staff could take place as well. Judge Leon held that the president is the “steward” of the White House and not the “owner,” and that Trump had no statutory authority to proceed, absent authorization from Congress.

On April 17, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the district court’s injunction, permitting work to resume, while it considered the matter.

On August 7, 2026, the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court’s injunction would remain in place. Construction was stopped again on the above-ground part of the project.

The government ran lickety-split to the Supreme Court for a stay of the district court’s injunction, so it could get back to work on the ballroom. It’s important to understand the posture here: This is not a case that has been briefed and orally argued on the merits. It’s a shadow docket ruling on whether an injunction should be in place to keep the government from building Trump’s ballroom while the litigation moves forward.

Read more: Why Can’t the Supreme Court Tell Trump No? – Civil Discourse – Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/why-cant-the-supreme-court-tell-trump