Last and Wittes examine legal obstacles to stopping Trump's ballroom
1 Sep 23 6:28 PM · 2d ago · 1 article · 3 posts · 3 sources · development 1 of 1
Jonathan V. Last and Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare publish an extended analysis of the legal fight over Trump's proposed ballroom and triumphal arch, focusing on why standing doctrine and appropriations law may prevent courts from intervening, and what Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent might signal to future challengers.
“why standing may be the biggest obstacle to stopping them and what John Roberts' dissent could be signaling to future challengers”
The Bulwark · rss ↗
Donald Trump President; subject of legal challengeJonathan V. Last Columnist, The Bulwark
Benjamin Wittes Lawfare editor; legal analystChief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Chief Justice
The whole story articlesposts the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What was reported 1 claim about this development
-
first by The Bulwark, 2d ago
What people said 1 voice · verbatim
-
So the Supreme Court said the organization that brought the previous lawsuit didn't have standing to sue as justification for allowing construction to continue. Should Democrats take both chambers of Congress next year, would they have standing to sue, or even halt the project?
All 1 developments of Trump's ballroom legal fight stalls on standing… →
MastodonNewswiresReddit