Supreme Court’s shadow-docket ruling raises constitutional clash over White House spending

In a recent Atlantic column, law professor Leah Litman contends that the Supreme Court’s shadow-docket order on the White House ballroom misinterprets the separation of powers by equating the president’s initiative with the federal government. She notes that the project, announced by Donald Trump in 2025 as donation-funded, proceeded without any congressional appropriation and later stalled for lack of funds. The Constitution assigns all spending decisions to Congress, yet the Court’s opinion glossed over this, reflecting a broader “unitary-executive” trend.

Litman also criticizes the Court’s narrow standing analysis, which dismissed the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge and could make it harder for citizens or NGOs to contest unlawful executive actions. Lawyer Michael C. Dorf echoed these concerns, emphasizing that historic preservation interests should confer standing. The dissent, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three Democratic appointees, warned that the majority’s approach threatens the enforceability of congressional statutes.