The Week: Trump’s Ballroom Dance

• With the deportation of Milo Yiannopoulos, we will get to find out whether working for Kanye West really is a job no American will do.

• The Supreme Court dismissed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s construction of a new ballroom and underground complex on the site of the White House East Wing, which he demolished last fall. While Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power over federal property, the legislative branch has long permitted presidents to put their own stamp on the building. Not content to let interbranch dynamics play out, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States challenged the project. One of its members, Alison Hoagland, claimed that the finished ballroom would inflict “injuries” on her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests.” In the majority opinion, the Court declared that it does not wish to live in “a world where virtually every citizen had standing to challenge virtually every government action that they do not like.” Neither do we. The Court exists to protect individual rights and prevent overweening assertions of government power. It is not responsible for policing quarrels over decor.

About the Author

NR Editors

NR Editors includes members of the editorial staff of our magazine and website.

• With the deportation of Milo Yiannopoulos, we will get to find out whether working for Kanye West really is a job no American will do.

• The Supreme Court dismissed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s construction of a new ballroom and underground complex on the site of the White House East Wing, which he demolished last fall. While Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power over federal property, the legislative branch has long permitted presidents to put their own stamp on the building. Not content to let interbranch dynamics play out, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States challenged the project. One of its members, Alison Hoagland, claimed that the finished ballroom would inflict “injuries” on her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests.” In the majority opinion, the Court declared that it does not wish to live in “a world where virtually every citizen had standing to challenge virtually every government action that they do not like.” Neither do we. The Court exists to protect individual rights and prevent overweening assertions of government power. It is not responsible for policing quarrels over decor.