Judge Richard Leon, appointed by George W. Bush, preliminarily enjoined the construction of Trump’s Folly, the gargantuan yet gaudy ballroom that would dwarf the White House and fundamentally change the nature of one of the premier symbols of the nation.

The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner! President Trump (“the President”) claims that Congress has given him authority in existing statutes to construct his East Wing ballroom project and to do it with private funds. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (“National Trust”), claims the President has no such authority under existing statutes and that a preliminary injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have. As such, I must therefore GRANT the National Trust’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.

While it’s unfortunate that Judge Leon has something of an obsession with the use of exclamation marks, there being 19 such marks in his decision, it doesn’t change the merits of the rationale for his ruling.

Contrary to the simplistic argument proffered by Trump and the MAGA faithful, that the ballroom is somehow immune from scrutiny because its construction is funded by donations rather than taxes (which raises other issues of influence buying), the issue is whether the president, merely the steward of the People’s House where he’s entitled to temporary residence, can do as he pleases. As Judge Leon notes, there are three statutes applicable to the ballroom that put the authority in the Nation’s property in the hands of Congress, not the president.

The National Trust’s claims require consideration of three main statutes.

3 U.S. C. § 105(d). Section 105, titled “Assistance and Services for the President,” provides for the employment of staff members to assist the President and authorizes appropriations for expenses related to White House administration.

40 USC. § 8106. This statute provides that “[a] building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

54 USC. § 100101. The National Park Service (“NPS”) Organic Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the director of the NPS,

shall promote and regulate the use of the National Park System by means and measures that conform to the fundamental purpose of the System units, which purpose is to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in the System units and to provide for the enjoyment of the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

While the law provides for the president to make minor alterations and modifications to the White House, there is neither statutory nor constitutional authority for the president to make major changes, such as constructing a ballroom larger than the White House.

That’s not to say that the project can reach its conclusion.

Where does this leave us? Unfortunately for Defendants, unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop! But here is the good news. It is not too late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project. The President may at any time go to Congress to obtain express authority to construct a ballroom and to do so with private funds. Indeed, Congress may even choose to appropriate funds for the ballroom, or at least decide that some other funding scheme is acceptable. Either way, Congress will thereby retain its authority over the nation’s property and its oversight over the Government’s spending. The National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be vindicated. And the American people will benefit from the branches of Government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles. Not a bad outcome, that!

Not so fast! There remains a (undiscussed in this ruling) dilemma arising from the question of whether the National Trust for Historic President in the United States has standing to challenge Trump’s ultra vires construction of a ballroom, whether you consider it “the most beautiful in the world” or tacky monstrosity. While there is no doubt that the National Trust, as an institution and as the voice of its members, has a strong interest in preventing Trump from ruining the White House, that doesn’t mean it has Article III standing to challenge Trump’s actions.

In an earlier ruling, the court relied on a purported aesthetic injury.

A member of the National Trust regularly walks near the White House, and enjoys the beauty of the architecture. But she doesn’t like the new design. This distress, she claims, gives her Article III standing to challenge the construction at the White House. She has no monetary interest. Rather, she simply doesn’t like how the structure appears.

Hoagland intends to continue visiting President’s Park roughly once a month. Id. at 12. She asserts that construction of a ballroom of the form and scale proposed by the President would disrupt her enjoyment and use of President’s Park and cause her to “suffer both professional and personal injuries, including to [her] aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests.” Id. at 13-14. The President’s proposed ballroom would, in Hoagland’s words, “overshadow[]” the White House and “diminish [its] primacy,” thereby disrupting the message that “our president lives in a house.” Id. at 13. Based on her claims of aesthetic injury, Hoagland could sue in her own right. It is well-settled that the “desire to use or observe” something, “even for purely [a]esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562-63.

The plaintiff is distressed by what she might have to see. To use Justice Gorsuch’s phrasing, Hogland is an “offended observer.”

As much as Judge Leon is absolutely correct that Trump is merely a steward of the White House with no power to create Trump’s Dream Castle, is it sufficient to a person to claim she walks past it and has to see it to establish standing to challenge it? Then again, if Trump has no authority to do this without congressional approval, but no one has standing to challenge Trump’s ultra vires destruction of an American icon to build a monument to his fragile ego, what use is the limits of law or Constitution to save the White House from ruin?