Preschool is no place to teach three- and four-year-olds to choose their own gender, but in Colorado, families choosing schools that share this belief are denied the state funding that all other families receive.
“I don’t subscribe to this ideology of choosing a child’s gender,” one father said, “but because of that, you’re excluding my family from education that they deserve.”
Colorado must soon defend this discrimination before the Supreme Court this fall.
When the state rolled out its Universal Preschool Program in 2023, Colorado provided up to $6,300 a year toward the preschool of a family’s choosing. Parents who couldn’t afford it suddenly had options — except Catholic ones.
To participate, a preschool must sign a nondiscrimination agreement on sexual orientation and gender identity, treating a child’s gender assertion as something adults should defer to, not something the school might otherwise decline to reinforce. Catholic preschools won’t sign it because it conflicts with church teaching on human sexuality and identity, so the state won’t let them participate.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M1xhPt49ijE?si=tculPl5hWarINNiT" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The math is not abstract. Colorado has excluded roughly 1,500 children across 30 schools from a program their families&#8217; tax dollars support. Enrollment at Catholic preschools has dropped one-fifth; at least two have closed. Families wanting a preschool that teaches their kids about Jesus now pay full freight, or give up altogether.
Dan and Lisa Sheley are one such couple. They have seven children, five enrolled at St. Mary’s in Littleton. The family pays out of pocket rather than give up a preschool they love. St. Mary’s, the Archdiocese of Denver, and the Sheleys sued and lost at both the district court and the Tenth Circuit, which held Colorado’s rule to be a neutral law of general applicability. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://becketfund.org/case/st-mary-catholic-parish-v-roy/___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzphZmQ4OjIzZWNjMTNmMmI3NWE5M2JjZGExY2EyN2YyZWNjZGJkNjc2NmI5NjgzYTAxZjU1NDVlMDRiOTVjNDJiYjFiZDc6cDpUOkY">St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy</a>, to settle how far a state can go before a rule that looks neutral on paper counts as targeting religion in practice.
That question traces to Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 decision holding that neutral, generally applicable laws don’t get special scrutiny for burdening religious exercise. States have learned to write rules that look neutral on paper but function as a religious sorting mechanism.
The Court has pushed back before: in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6Nzo1YzYwOjdlZjdkOThhYjc1ZWFlZGEyMDNiZmYwMjI0NmY3MWNkNTNjNzc2YzQ1OGMxOTg5NWJkM2E5YjRkYWMwYzQ3MDg6cDpUOkY">Trinity Lutheran v. Comer</a>, <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzpjOGNjOjM1ZDFiMDk3Yjk1NWJkOWIxOWFmZjA0OWZiOWU3NTcxNTYzMGRmN2JkYTY1ZjBiMzk3ZGJkNDk2ZjIxNmQ0ODM6cDpUOkY">Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue</a>, and <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzowZDk1OjMxNDhiZmI2OWNlMDA3NTgyZjQwMTA3MWUyODhiNDE3NzE3N2I4ZjFkZWJhMGE5YjFlMWI1Njg0MGZlMzIyN2Y6cDpUOkY">Carson v. Makin</a>, it held that once a state opens a public benefit to private options, it can’t slam the door on religious ones. Colorado’s program does what those cases forbid: it hands out public money for private preschool choice, then carves out certain religious choices.
Colorado has a track record of running roughshod over conscience. The state tried forcing a baker to design cakes for a same-sex wedding, and lost at the Supreme Court in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111diff2_e1pf.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzpiMTY3OjBlMTc1YWQ4NjQ5YmE4NTdhZWQ1ZjNlOTU1ZDVjOWRmZDIxMTM1ZmMyZWI0YWRiMDljMGVmMDc0M2RlYjk3NTQ6cDpUOkY">Masterpiece Cakeshop</a>. It tried forcing a website designer to build sites celebrating same-sex marriage, and lost again in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6Nzo3YjlmOjJkY2YwNGUxZDE4MjVjNzI3ZTViM2I5OTZmM2JkMjczNDcyN2QwYTZjMzRlYjFiNDg3MTYyOGZkMGM4Y2E5MzI6cDpUOkY">303 Creative</a>. It tried compelling a Christian counselor to affirm gender transition in therapy rather than decline to counsel toward it, and lost again in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzoyNWQ0OmFhNzFlN2JhMTY2OTNkN2ZiNDNkOTExNzYyODgyZmU1Mzg1ZGFiZDAwNGVkN2RkYTkxZDJhZTY5ZDk2NThiNWI6cDpUOkY">Chiles v. Salazar</a>. Colorado keeps drafting rules that burden religious objectors, and the Court keeps saying no. St. Mary’s is the preschool sequel.
Colorado isn’t fighting this quietly. One brief argues a religious exemption would create <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/419878/20260824113348636_25-581%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6Nzo5MTgyOjEwZTFhNjgyZDhjYzg4NTNlOTRmZTQxMWRlZmUyMGFkY2QzZjkzOTYyMzVhNDJmYmJlMmViMTNhZTBjNTBjOWE6cDpUOkY">bureaucratic chaos</a>, as if paperwork should outweigh a constitutional right. Another, from legal scholars, claims <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/419893/20260824122657325_Amicus%20Brief.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzoyNzllOjA1NTA5OGQ0NjE1NTE1NGNhMDQ4MGI2ODc4ZDgxNTVmMjdkODgwNTVmNWI1OWYzMWZjNTVjNWZiMzgzNjVmMzE6cDpUOkY">four-year-olds already carry LGBT identities</a> fragile enough to be wounded by a parish preschool’s teaching and treats toddlers as fully formed adults only when it helps the state’s case. A brief from congressional Democrats prioritizes <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/419938/20260824142544979_2026-08-24__Brief-of-179-Members-of-Congress-as-Amici.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzpkZjdkOjVmMTcyZGFiNmMzMjEzOWFkNzE2ZGVhYzM3NzMyYWEyMjdkMzliNmFlMDc3YjhhZTE2NzkwOWEzN2I2MTczMDQ6cDpUOkY">deference to the legislative branch</a> over families&#8217; wishes. Colorado’s defenders insist the program isn’t an individualized-exemption scheme, even as it carves out categorical priority for low-income kids and kids with disabilities — and the program&#8217;s own director explicitly said that schools serving only LGBT-identified kids, trans children, or children of a single race could take part. Those exemptions disappear the moment the preschool asking is Catholic.
Colorado’s own <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-581/399725/20260302153848466_2026.03.02%20St.%20Mary%20v.%20Roy%2025-581%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ODY4YjNkMGY3YzE0YzJmZmIwMWRjZDQ4OWRkN2YxYjE6NzozM2I1OjFhODVhODJiYjVkMGJkODFjMDc4YzViMjcyNGMxOTI0MDdjMGM4MmI3NGNkYzFjMDMxNGM1MmY2YTk3ODY3MzU6cDpUOkY">brief</a> adds a few claims of its own. The state calls its equal-opportunity rule a health-and-safety standard in the same category as fire codes and immunizations, so no preschool can be excused from it. It dismisses any comparison between the exemption it claims St. Mary’s wants and the carve-outs already granted to low-income and disabled children, quoting a lower court that called it “farcical,” without explaining why Catholic faith deserves less accommodation than a diagnosis or a tax bracket. And the state’s own expert witness testified during trial that you never know when a child will embrace a gender identity different from their biological sex.
One doesn’t have to agree with Catholic teaching on human sexuality and identity to see the problem. A public benefit program is supposed to be neutral among ideas and identities, not a lever a state uses to pressure religious institutions into changing what they teach preschoolers about who they are. Conditioning public support for a child’s education on abandoning faith commitments isn’t neutrality. It’s a price tag on religious belief.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments later this fall. Given the Court’s recent Free Exercise rulings, Colorado should expect the same answer it’s gotten before: the Constitution doesn’t let government dangle a public benefit, then ask families to choose between taking it and keeping their faith.
***
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is director of the Conscience Project. She filed an <a href="https://conscience-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/25-581-Brief.pdf">amicus brief</a> with the Supreme Court on behalf of several Catholic families in Colorado.

Students at Catholic school.

Colorado Keeps Waging War On Religious Freedom. Now It’s Attacking Preschools.

catholic church

colorado

gender identity

religious freedom

school choice

supreme court

Some abortion advocates are so zealous that, I’ve heard people say, it’s as if abortion is their religion. Now, in the latest entry to the truth-can-be-stranger-than-fiction file: Abortion extremists in Indiana claim that the state’s law banning most abortions violates their right to…wait for it…exercise religion. The Indiana Supreme Court is now considering their lawsuit.
This is the legal backstory. The First Amendment protects the fundamental right to freely exercise religion. Because this right is so important, the Supreme Court has long said that government needs a “compelling” purpose to interfere with it. In 1972, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/LM358_0.pdf">some creative law professors</a> argued that a woman exercises religion when she has an abortion allowed by her religious or moral beliefs. Since protecting human beings in the womb is not a “compelling” government purpose, the argument goes, pro-life laws violate the First Amendment.
In 1990, however, the Supreme Court said the compelling purpose standard applies only when the government deliberately undermines religious practice. That hardly ever happens, which means the government almost never violates the First Amendment, no matter how it hinders, or even prohibits, the exercise of religion. Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to bring back the compelling purpose standard for all religious exercise cases. Many states, including Indiana, have passed RFRAs to similarly protect religious exercise against state government action.
When Congress considered RFRA, some pro-life groups warned that abortion advocates might once again claim that pro-life laws violate the right to exercise religion, this time citing RFRA rather than the First Amendment. The nation’s leading First Amendment scholars <a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/LM358_0.pdf">pushed back</a>, arguing that, to be an exercise of religion, a decision or action must actually result from religious belief. Simply being consistent with, or not prohibited by, those beliefs is not enough.
The Supreme Court had taken this position in 1980 when it upheld the Hyde Amendment, a federal law banning taxpayer funding of most abortions. The Court said that, to be an “exercise of religion,” an action or decision must actually be compelled by, rather than just consistent with, religious belief.
Now abortion advocates are, once again, making the same argument in challenging Indiana’s pro-life law. Their first hurdle, which the Indiana Supreme Court explored in the argument on September 10, is whether the plaintiffs have legal standing to challenge the pro-life law at all. A plaintiff must have suffered an actual or imminent legal injury caused by the defendant that the court can address. In this case, none of the plaintiffs is pregnant, intends to become pregnant, or has ever been denied an abortion. Indiana has never even attempted to enforce the law they are challenging. Instead, the plaintiffs can only make the hypothetical claim that the state prohibits abortions that they might, someday, seek to obtain.
The second hurdle is the one the Supreme Court addressed almost five decades ago in Harris v. McRae. The plaintiffs say that the hypothetical abortion they might someday seek, but that the state would prohibit, is “consistent” with their religious beliefs — exactly what the Court in Harris said was not enough. Imagine how many decisions or actions your religious or moral beliefs do not explicitly prohibit. Then think of how many laws of all sorts you could ignore simply by claiming that your beliefs allow you to do what those laws prohibit or refrain from doing what they require.
The third hurdle — if they get past the first two — is that government has an obvious compelling reason to protect human beings in the womb. Abortion, after all, is homicide committed earlier, and by different methods, than the homicide the law already prohibits. Calling it “abortion” rather than “homicide” can’t change that. If protecting human beings from being killed isn’t a compelling government purpose, what is?
This Indiana case is one of several similar attempts to eliminate pro-life laws. Abortion advocates did not need this religious argument after the Supreme Court created a right to abortion, but they want to bring it back now that the Supreme Court has said the abortion right does not exist. Their argument is no more valid today than it was when it was proffered and rejected in the past.
***
Thomas Jipping is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

Crowds Attend Annual March For Life In Washington DC

Abortion Is Not A Religious Exercise

abortion

first amendment

indiana fever

opinion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf"> Trump v. Slaughter</a> gives us a reason to celebrate Constitution Day. In that case, SCOTUS corrected a long-standing error. It overruled a<a href="https://natelsonrob.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/1935-Humphreys-Exr-v-US.pdf"> 1935 decision</a> that hobbled the president in his constitutional duty to run the executive branch of the federal government.
Now it’s time for the court to correct some of the other mistakes it made around the same time — mistakes that have distorted the Constitution, reduced our freedom, and driven the U.S. government to the edge of bankruptcy.
Why Trump v. Slaughter Was Correct
Trump v. Slaughter voided a statute that, while allowing the president to appoint members of the Federal Trade Commission, tried to prevent him from removing them before the expiration of a seven-year term. The court noted that the Constitution gives executive power to the president, not to Congress. Executive power includes the authority to fire officials who are not in sync with the program the people voted for.
The Slaughter decision was correct for two reasons. The first is a technical one: Even when a presidential appointment is subject to Senate approval, it is the president alone who<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F9LM4LM9"> actually appoints</a>. When the Constitution was adopted, it was universally understood that a power to hire included a power to fire.
Another reason the Slaughter decision was correct is practical: The president cannot carry out his constitutional duties as chief executive unless he can dismiss executive branch officials.
Judicial Malpractice
The case overruled in Slaughter was one of many mistakes the court made during the period from about 1920 to 1950. This was truly a<a href="https://natelsonrob.com/1937-1944-complete-series/"> low point</a> for the Supreme Court. Its constitutional and historical analysis was often dreadful, even when it reached the correct result. It was influenced by authoritarian ideals then popular among the elite, but directly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
Moreover, for part of that period, the court faced enormous political pressure. That pressure eased only after 1940, when political hacks with little or no prior judicial experience dominated the bench.
The decisions issued during that period, particularly around 1940, allowed Congress to stray far outside its constitutional authority. They also let Congress hand over lawmaking power it really didn’t have to unelected bureaucrats insulated from the president and unaccountable to the voters.
How to Restore the Constitutional Balance
Restoring the document we celebrate on Constitution Day requires further action from both Congress and the courts.
First, Congress must stop writing laws that give executive agencies almost limitless discretion. Because the Slaughter case affirmed that those agencies are not independent of the president, Congress may have reason to write its laws more carefully.
Second, the court should clarify another poorly written case — the 1926 decision in<a href="https://natelsonrob.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/1926-Myers-v.-US.pdf"> Myers v. United States</a>. The case correctly held that the president can fire executive branch officials. But it further claimed, erroneously, that the Constitution gives the president an undefined reservoir of “executive power.”
Actually, the Constitution’s text and surrounding history show that the president has only powers listed in the Constitution, together with some implied authority. There is no grant of an undefined “executive power.” The claim in Myers must be corrected to ensure that the Slaughter decision does not unduly increase already-excessive presidential authority.
Third, the great Chief Justice John Marshall once pointed out that when a federal law exceeds the power granted by the Constitution, it is the court’s “<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/">painful duty</a> … should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”
During the latter part of the 1920-1950 period, the court entirely abdicated this “painful duty.” Decisions from that era pretended that Congress’s power to tax includes power to spend without limit. They pretended that Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce includes authority to govern the entire U.S. economy. They pretended that the federal government’s constitutional power to manage its property somehow grants it the right to own more than a quarter of the country’s real estate.
In this area, the court needs to start doing its job again. One good step would be to accept a<a href="https://alec.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ALEC-AAF-LJC-26-93-Ream-Brief.pdf"> pending case</a> that offers an opportunity to overrule the Court’s absurd 1942 decision in<a href="https://www.texaspolicy.com/we-have-filed-the-case-that-could-overturn-wickard-and-limit-commerce-clause-powers/"> Wickard v. Filburn</a>.
Finally, the Supreme Court should modify cases that allow Congress to<a href="https://natelsonrob.com/the-nondelegation-doctrine-and-the-necessary-and-proper-clause/"> delegate</a> huge swaths of legislative authority to federal bureaucrats. While the Constitution allows Congress to delegate matters of detail to the executive branch, it does not permit Congress to divest itself of core legislative responsibilities.
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court has already begun this step with its recent “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/major_questions_doctrine">major question doctrine</a>” cases. They put the burden of proof on agencies, claiming that existing statutes grant them vast new powers.
Restoring the constitutional balance will take time, if only because the Court cannot act unilaterally. It must take cases as they come.
But Constitution Day 2026 is a good time for the justices to commit to the process.
***
Robert G. Natelson is a former constitutional law professor and senior fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the <a href="https://centennial.ccu.edu/">Centennial Institute</a>, the conservative think tank of <a href="https://ccu.edu/">Colorado Christian University.</a> He authored “The Original Constitution” and is a contributor to the Heritage Foundation’s “Heritage Guide to the Constitution.”

U.S. Supreme Court Exterior

A Constitution Day Roadmap For The Supreme Court And How To End The Administrative State

administrative state

constitution day

executive power

trump v slaughter

President Donald Trump erupted on social media Tuesday, slamming the Supreme Court after it <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/supreme-court-denies-trump-administrations-request-to-implement-parts-of-usps-rule-on-mail-in-vo/">blocked his administration</a> from rolling out new restrictions on mail-in voting weeks before the November midterms.
In a Truth Social <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117275286602582454">post</a>, the president accused the justices of caving to political pressure, calling the ruling &#8220;a big loss for Republicans&#8221; and claiming the current court barely resembles the one he originally nominated. He praised Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, calling them &#8220;legends&#8221; for siding with his administration, while suggesting the rest of the court had let the country down.
&#8220;Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting &#8216;disaster,&#8217; which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM,&#8221; Trump wrote.
Trump ripped Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, calling out their opposition to his policies on multiple rulings, including tariffs and birthright citizenship.
&#8220;These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America,&#8221; Trump added.
Trump’s statement came after the Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order issued Monday night, refused to let the U.S. Postal Service enforce a new rule tied to one of Trump&#8217;s executive orders, which would require states to hand over lists of eligible voters so USPS could verify them before delivering mail-in ballots. The rule also set strict design requirements for ballot envelopes. The justices left in place an injunction from a federal judge in Boston, who had blocked the rule from taking effect.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who sided with the majority in this case, wrote separately to explain his reasoning. He said the Postal Service may ultimately have the legal authority to issue such a rule, but argued it would be unreasonable to force election officials to implement it this close to the midterms given how little time they&#8217;d have to prepare.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the order, arguing the administration had done enough to justify blocking the lower court&#8217;s order and that the challengers bringing the case lacked enough legal standing.
In March, the president signed an executive order aimed at cracking down on alleged voter fraud tied to mail-in ballots. Two dozen mostly Democratic-led states, led by California, sued, arguing the order violated states&#8217; constitutional authority over how their elections are run.
After a federal judge sided with the states, the Supreme Court briefly let the administration move forward in late August on procedural grounds, before the judge blocked the USPS-specific rules again in early September.
That set up the latest showdown, which the administration lost.
For now, the November midterms will proceed without the new USPS mail-in voting restrictions, but the broader legal battle over the rule&#8217;s future is expected to continue in the lower courts.

SWITZERLAND-G7-US-TRUMP-POLITICS

Trump Unloads On His Own SCOTUS Picks After Mail-Ballot Defeat

2026 midterm election

brett kavanaugh

donald trump

mail in voting

politics

The Supreme Court on Monday night kept President Donald Trump&#8217;s new mail-ballot rules on hold ahead of the November midterms.
The justices denied the Trump administration&#8217;s request to suspend a lower court injunction, leaving the rules blocked while litigation continues. States can continue mailing ballots under their current procedures.
In an unsigned 7-2 order, the court said that the government was &#8220;unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge&#8221; to the injunction and had failed to satisfy the other requirements for emergency relief.
The Postal Service&#8217;s rule would require states to use ballot envelopes with an election-mail logo, machine-scannable features, and a barcode unique to each voter. Election officials would also have to submit envelope designs for approval and upload voters&#8217; names and addresses to a federal portal. The Postal Service could reject noncompliant mailings and return them to election officials.
The administration said the Postal Service had authority to impose the requirements, while election officials warned that implementing them weeks before the midterms could delay or prevent the delivery of ballots. Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin had already started sending ballots when the Supreme Court acted.
The dispute previously reached the Supreme Court in August. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-appointed-judge-throws-trumps-mail-in-ballot-plan-into-limbo">reported</a>, the justices paused an earlier injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, because the states had sued before demonstrating that the Trump administration&#8217;s plan would harm them. The Supreme Court emphasized that it had not decided whether the plan itself was legal.
After the Postal Service finalized its rule, the states filed a renewed challenge. Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, writing that states were &#8220;unable to pivot this late in the election cycle&#8221; without risking disenfranchising voters.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the rule should remain blocked for the midterms, but he said there was &#8220;at least a fair prospect&#8221; it fell within the Postal Service&#8217;s authority. He concluded that applying it during the 2026 elections would be &#8220;arbitrary and capricious&#8221; because officials lacked sufficient time to implement it.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the administration had met the requirements for a stay. Monday&#8217;s decision does not permanently invalidate the rule, but it effectively prevents its use during this year&#8217;s elections.

U.S. President Donald Trump Visits Ireland – Day Two Doonbeg

Supreme Court Slams Brakes On Trump’s Mail-Ballot Plan

united states postal service

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg argued Sunday that the Supreme Court has become dangerously partisan — then proposed a fix that would require Congress to add six justices widely expected to lean in his own party&#8217;s favor, during an appearance on NBC&#8217;s Meet the Press.
Buttigieg told host Kristen Welker that the court has come to look like a &#8220;nakedly partisan institution&#8221; and calling for six additional justices to be added to the current nine-member bench — a bigger expansion than he has previously floated.
&#8220;It has become a nakedly partisan institution,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And I want to be clear. The idea is not to just add justices for its own sake. The idea is to reform the institution, to make it less partisan.&#8221;
The comments extend a message Buttigieg has delivered repeatedly since at least July, when he told Fox News that public confidence in the court had fallen to what he called the lowest point in its history, and proposed a package of changes including term limits for justices and a &#8220;balanced bench&#8221; selection process meant to reduce political influence over appointments. At that time, Buttigieg said he favored expanding the court from nine seats to 13, a number he said should match what he called &#8220;the number of districts&#8221; in the federal system. In fact, the federal judiciary has 94 judicial districts; the number 13 refers to the appellate circuits, not districts — an error critics flagged after his July remarks.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Fix Congress. Reform the Supreme Court. End money in politics. We cannot be afraid to fight for big reforms.
Whether it’s paying more at the pump or struggling to afford a mortgage, kitchen-table problems will only be solvable when we deliver more accountability in government. <a href="https://t.co/YodjxFkJVu">pic.twitter.com/YodjxFkJVu</a>
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://x.com/PeteButtigieg/status/2077232918053675143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
His Sunday figure of six additional seats, bringing the bench to 15, aligns instead with an <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/9/6/17827786/kavanaugh-vote-supreme-court-packing">academic proposal</a> first advanced by law professors Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, under which judges would be divided evenly between the parties with a final bloc chosen by consensus.
Buttigieg, widely viewed as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender, has not said whether he would pursue court expansion as a policy priority if elected.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Airline Passenger Protections

Buttigieg Proposes Court-Packing To Fix Supreme Court He Calls ‘Nakedly Partisan’

2028 presidential election

court packing

meet the press

pete buttigieg

The Supreme Court blocked a federal judge’s decision ordering Missouri officials to use Republican-friendly maps for the midterm elections. 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091026zr_b07d.pdf">granted</a> a request from a left-wing group to block a lower court ruling directing Missouri to use election maps from the state’s 2026 primary instead of the older 2022 maps favored by Democrats. The block will remain as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case. 
The order is the latest update in a dramatic back-and-forth battle over which districts Missouri voters will see on the ballot in November. Maps passed by the state legislature in 2025 and used during the 2026 primary elections were expected to yield a 7-1 Republican House seat advantage. The old maps, approved in 2022, led to a 6-2 GOP advantage. 
Adding further complexity to the case, the deadline for Missouri to finalize the ballot was September 8.
Kavanaugh’s order could significantly alter the landscape in an election year in which every seat counts as both parties fight for control of the House. His order blocks the decision of Eastern District of Missouri Chief Judge Stephen Clark, who argued that primary voters would be disenfranchised if the maps reverted. 
“Disenfranchising voters across the state and denying them their constitutional right to have their primary votes counted significantly harm the public interest,” he wrote. “Using a different map for the general election would wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri’s congressional elections, calling into question the candidacy of those nominated in the primaries and the votes of those who voted in the primaries. Widespread voter confusion would inevitably follow.”
That decision came after Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO), Republican congressional nominee Rick Brattin, and two Missouri primary voters argued that their votes would be invalidated if the old maps were reinstated for the November election. Clark, appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed. 
The lawsuit came after the Missouri Supreme Court said that the 2022 maps must be used until a referendum can be held after a challenge by a liberal group called “People Not Politicians.” 
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins said that the new maps would be used to comply with Clark&#8217;s ruling despite the state Supreme Court’s ruling that the old maps should be used. The court has called for a hearing on whether to hold Hoskins in contempt of court over his decision.

President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address To Joint Session Of Congress

Supreme Court Hands GOP Another Loss In Election Map Battle

house of representatives

missouri

redistricting

The surrogate mother who refused a California couple’s demand to abort a baby after he was diagnosed with a heart defect is taking her extraordinary custody battle to the U.S. Supreme Court.
McKenna West, an Alaska nurse who carried and gave birth to the baby in Texas, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/mw-california-surrogate-custody-fight.pdf">filed an emergency application</a> Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to block a California ruling recognizing the biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, as the child’s legal parents. West’s attorneys have asked Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees urgent matters from the Ninth Circuit, to block the California ruling temporarily. 
Kagan has not yet ruled on the request. In most cases on the court’s emergency docket, justices will refer the matter to the full court for review. An order in West&#8217;s favor would not resolve the custody issue, but rather hit the brakes on the California ruling and bring the surrogate mother back into the fold as the infant child fights for his life. 
The remarkable custody battle case centers around a bitter dispute over abortion, surrogacy, and parental rights. West says the California ruling has left her unable to advocate for the medically fragile newborn, whom she calls Gabriel. His genetic parents named him Rumi.
West’s attorneys argue that the existing court orders are inflicting “irreparable harm” — a legal term for damage or injury that cannot be remedied without immediate intervention from the high court.
“The child could be removed from the Texas hospital and taken to California for hospice — despite his treatable condition — around September 17, if not sooner,” the filing reads. “Without a stay, the Commissioning Parties may halt life-saving care for Baby G. before this Court can even consider a petition for certiorari, much less rule on the merits.”
At 20 weeks, the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital heart defect that typically requires three staged surgeries. With treatment, babies with HLHS can survive into adulthood, according to <a href="https://www.nyp.org/pediatrics/heart/hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs/treatment">NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital</a>. The diagnosis prompted the biological parents to seek an abortion. West initially agreed but changed her mind and fled to Texas, where she sought medical care in a state with sweeping abortion restrictions. 
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=12&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">told</a> Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
The baby was born on August 12 and has undergone at least one complex life-saving surgery to treat his heart condition, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/baby-fights-for-life-as-genetic-parents-battle-surrogate-who-refused-abortion">The Daily Wire reported</a>. 
In a Dallas courtroom last month, the genetic parents Gilkar and Ahmed told a judge they were reeling after West defied their demand to get an abortion. 
“He’s our child,” Gilkar said, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">the Associated Press</a>, which reported that the California woman wiped away tears on the witness stand. Referring to the surrogate sitting across the courtroom, Gilkar added, “She’s unstable. She’s trying to take him from us.”
Jeff Domen, an attorney for West, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">repeatedly pressed</a> Gilkar about her desire to terminate the pregnancy after the baby heart defect diagnosis. 
“Would you trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead?” Domen asked.
Gilkar said she did not know how to answer.
In earlier court filings, the biological parents accused West of initially agreeing to terminate the pregnancy before reversing course, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-surrogate-claims-wanted-baby-aborted-break-silence-as-red-state-steps-in?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Couple+Surrogate+Claims+Wanted+Baby+Aborted+Break+Silence+As+Red+State+Steps+In">The Daily Wire</a> reported. They have also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/surrogate-baby-saga-takes-dark-new-turn-after-mom-chose-life">sued West for more than $100,000</a>, alleging she violated a <a href="https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf">surrogacy agreement</a> that included an abortion provision.
“It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers,” the filing said.
In August, a Dallas judge granted the biological couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying. On September 2, the Texas judge upheld the California ruling and removed West from the case, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/surrogate-refused-abortion-takes-fight-supreme-court-babys-life-hangs-balance">Fox News reported</a>.
West is now shut out of the baby’s life and largely in the dark about his medical care and prognosis as the appeals process unfolds. Her attorneys allege the biological parents have begun challenging the medical-care order, despite previously agreeing to the baby’s first round of life-saving surgery.
Now, West’s attorneys are pleading with the nation’s highest court to intervene and restore her ability to advocate for the child.
“Unless this Court provides relief from that judgment, M.W. will have no access to information about Baby G.’s condition as the Commissioning Parties seek to overturn the Texas order requiring him to receive ongoing life-saving care,” West’s attorneys said.

Surrogate Who Refused Abortion Takes Nasty Custody Battle To Supreme Court

child custody

mckenna west

surrogacy dispute

texas

A federal judge on Friday again blocked the U.S. Postal Service from requiring states to follow new mail-ballot procedures developed under President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Postal Service from imposing the requirements ahead of the November midterms. The ruling replaces a temporary block Talwani imposed after Democratic-led states renewed their legal challenge.
States may voluntarily use the Postal Service&#8217;s new system, but none have announced plans to do so, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2026-trump-mail-voting-postal-service-ce207ff2d0533de05cc2d299e91a0198">reported</a>.
Under the rule, state election officials would have to submit voters&#8217; names, addresses, and unique ballot-envelope barcodes through a federal portal before turning outbound ballots over to the Postal Service. The Postal Service could reject mailings that did not comply and return them to election officials.
Talwani said the timing would make compliance difficult as states begin distributing ballots. North Carolina mailed its first ballots Friday. Other states are expected to soon follow.
Talwani wrote that states are &#8220;unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly guaranteeing significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters.&#8221;
The case reached the Supreme Court last month. On August 24, the justices paused an earlier injunction issued by Talwani, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-makes-decision-in-mail-in-ballot-fight-ahead-of-midterms">reported</a>, finding that the states had sued before showing that Trump&#8217;s executive order would actually harm them. The justices made clear that they had not ruled on whether the administration&#8217;s actions were legal.
Following that ruling, Talwani <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-scores-second-major-win-in-mail-in-voting-fight">lifted</a> her remaining injunction, temporarily clearing the way for the Postal Service to proceed. By then, the Postal Service had issued its final rule. That allowed the states to challenge the rule itself.
The states then sued over the final rule, and Talwani blocked it Friday.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift Talwani&#8217;s temporary block. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave the states challenging the rule until 10 a.m. Tuesday to respond. Talwani replaced the temporary order with a preliminary injunction Friday, and the parties notified the Supreme Court of the new ruling. The justices have not indicated when they will act.

US-VOTE-WASHINGTON

Obama-Appointed Judge Throws Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Plan Into Limbo

indira talwani

us postal service

House Democrats voted on Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would lock the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices — as it has been since 1869.
Because the proposed measure would amend the U.S. Constitution, two-thirds of the House would have to vote in favor for it to pass. Thursday&#8217;s vote count, at 212-206, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-block-constitutional-amendment-supreme-court-justices-rcna595736">failed</a> to reach that threshold — and all but one House Democrat voted against it.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced the proposed amendment, which would read, &#8220;The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.&#8221;
The need for such an amendment, he said, stemmed from the growing number of Democrats who were displeased with the current makeup of the Supreme Court and have suggested expansion as a means of making it more &#8220;fair&#8221; (read: tipping it leftward).
&#8220;If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,&#8221; he said.
But House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) pushed her fellow Democrats to vote &#8220;no&#8221; on the measure.
&#8220;This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,&#8221; she argued, adding that spending time talking about the size of the court would also distract from other business like addressing affordability.
The size of the court, which has been officially nine since 1869, is not outlined in the Constitution and has traditionally been left up to Congress to determine. The Judiciary Act of 1789 initially set the court&#8217;s size at six justices — but it has changed several times in the years since.
In 1807, a seventh justice was added to accommodate new western circuits as the nation expanded. In 1837, Congress increased the court to include nine justices. A tenth was added during the Civil War in 1863, but Congress reduced the court back to just seven in 1866 — a move designed to prevent then-President Andrew Johnson from making any appointments to the high court. The Judiciary Act of 1869 brought the number back to nine.
In the 1930s, in an effort to get around a conservative Supreme Court and push his New Deal policies, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a plan to add as many as six justices to the court — but the backlash, even from his own party, forced him to reconsider.
In recent years, however, more and more Democrats have come around to the idea — and many are openly calling for it.
&#8220;I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.&#8221;
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also suggested that she was on board with the idea of a 13-member Court.
Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) voted against it despite normally caucusing with Republicans.

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

Dems Vote Down Amendment That Would Lock SCOTUS At Nine Justices

andy biggs

constitutional amendment

house democrats

katherine clark

The White House complex&#8217;s historic bowling alley is next in line for an upgrade as President Donald Trump continues to leave his mark on Washington. 
The General Services Administration awarded a contract worth more than $250,000 to renovate the lighting at the two-lane Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley, Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/31/white-house-bowling-alley-gets-a-250k-glow-up-01057880">reported</a> Monday. 
The July 28 contract went to Charles Mann Enterprises, a Washington-based construction firm that later received an additional $8,800 contract to escort workers through secure areas during the project. 
The company was founded by former NFL defensive end Charles Mann, who played for the Washington Redskins and the San Francisco 49ers. During his career, Mann was selected to four Pro Bowls and won three Super Bowls during his pro football career.
A West Wing basement bowling alley was first constructed in 1947 under President Harry Truman before the lanes were transferred to the Old Executive Office Building in the 1950s, <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/sports-recreation">according</a> to the White House Historical Association. President Richard Nixon later added a bowling alley to the White House residential complex in 1973, as he enjoyed bowling with his wife. 
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1169715" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1169715" class="size-full wp-image-1169715" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528.jpg" alt="The champs are the three top winners of the national 10-pin bowling tournament that VA conducted in six of its paraplegic centers where paralyzed vets receive special treatment. Left to right: Gordon C. Scott of Crossville, Ala., patient at Memphis, Tenn., VA hospital; Leo Ladduceur of Detroit, Mich., and Gerald A. Kopp of Spokane, Wash., both patients at the Van Nuys, Calif., hospital, and President Truman." width="1024" height="758" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-300x222.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-778x576.jpg 778w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-768x569.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Truman and veterans bowling in 1947. Credit: Bettmann / Contributor via Getty Images.</div>
A previous project to revamp the bowling alley under President Barack Obama in 2014 was scrapped after Republican objections. The Republican-controlled House later approved an amendment prohibiting federal funding for the renovation.
During Trump’s first term, first lady Melania Trump <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-first-lady-melania-trump-celebrates-completion-the-newly-renovated-bowling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oversaw</a> the restoration of the Nixon-era alley that restored its original wooden lane and updated its electrical wiring, machinery, and interior. The Bowling Proprietors&#8217; Association of America funded that project.
Throughout his second term, Trump has transformed parts of the White House complex through multiple construction projects. He remade the Rose Garden with a white stone patio and statues honoring America&#8217;s founders, oversaw construction of a granite helipad on the South Lawn, and renovated the historic Lincoln Bedroom bathroom. 
Trump has also pushed for the construction of a new White House ballroom and military complex, which he has argued is necessary for national security. The project has faced opposition from preservation groups but won a significant legal victory Monday when the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-drops-5-4-ruling-in-trump-ballroom-fight?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Drops+5-4+Ruling+In+Trump+Ballroom+Fight">cleared</a> the way for construction to continue while litigation proceeds. 
The court&#8217;s 5-4 majority did not decide whether the project is legal, ruling only that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was unlikely to establish that it had standing to challenge the construction.

President Trump Shows White House Press Corps The Continuing Ballroom Construction

Iconic White House Amenity Is Next Up On The Renovation List

melania trump

white house

white house ballroom

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move forward with construction of the White House ballroom. 
In an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf">unsigned 5-4 order</a>, the majority granted an emergency application from the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have halted work on the aboveground portion of the project. At this preliminary stage, the majority concluded the preservation groups who brought the lawsuit lacked standing to sue. 
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the high court wrote. 
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — in dissent. He argued that Congress has not delegated the president the authority to undergo such a project. 
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote. “Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”
On Aug. 21, Roberts issued an<a href="https://x.com/JordanOnRecord/status/2090863977840459889?s=20"> administrative stay</a>, temporarily blocking the federal district court’s injunction while the full Supreme Court considered the Trump administration’s emergency request. Monday’s order marks a rare instance of Roberts in dissent as the conservative wing moves forward without him.
“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” Roberts argued with the liberals. 
“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he added. 
The split decision is a significant victory for the administration, which has argued that construction should be allowed to continue as the case moved through the courts, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-gives-trump-green-light-to-keep-building-white-house-ballroom-for-now">The Daily Wire</a> reported.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/supreme-court-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-for-now/">described</a> the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.” The administration has also argued that the White House requires additional security infrastructure, including facilities designed to protect the president and other officials from potential attacks.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit against the administration, disagreed. The group argued that Trump cannot unilaterally demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and other required reviews. The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review” by moving construction forward as quickly as possible.
The administration said in court filings that the project is already roughly 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump first announced the ballroom project after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project financed primarily through private donations. 
The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to clear the site.

Construction Continues On Trump Projects Around Washington, DC

Supreme Court Drops 5-4 Ruling In Trump Ballroom Fight

john roberts

national trust for historic preservation

Menu