BREAKING: Supreme Court hands down MAJOR ruling on EMERGENCY DOCKET

We now have a major ruling that just. took place at the hands of five. conservative Supreme Court justices on. the shadow docket as something of a gift. to Donald Trump. Glenn, can you explain. what this new news is at the hands of. Donald Trump's five conservative justice. block? >> Yeah, Brian, here it is. The Chief. Justice of the United States of America, Justice John Roberts, said Donald Trump. building his ballroom is quote likely. illegal. And then the court decided they. were going to let him continue to build.

his ballroom. You might say, "Well, how. in the world can that be?" Well, Chief. Justice Roberts crossed over and joined. the three justice minority so that it. was a five4 opinion. It doesn't get any. closer of a split than that. Five of the. kind of right-wing uh ideologue justices. said, "You know what? illegal doesn't. really matter to us. What matters is. that we're not sure that the historic.

preservation trust that brought the suit. has standing. So Brian, even though. really the five justice majority seem to. tacitly concede that this is all likely. illegal and unconstitutional, they said. we don't care. We're going to um decide. this on a technicality and we're going. to let the president continue to act. lawlessly and unconstitutionally. Now, now look, I am something of a rule of. law purist, right? Federal prosecutor. for 30 years. I play by the rules. And.

standing is important. Standing means. that the person who brought the lawsuit. has to have a dog in the fight. They. have to have a stake in the litigation. and, you know, the outcome has to impact. them. You would think the historic. trust, which is, you know, supposed to. be protecting and preserving historic. buildings and structures in Washington. DC, would have standing, would have a. dog in this fight. But, you know, the. five justice majority said, "You know. what? We're just likely to conclude that.

because the trust doesn't have standing, Donald Trump can continue to act. lawlessly and unconstitutionally, even if that happens to be the state of. the sort of procedural posture. It's. very difficult to see how it's the right. thing for the people, for the the. Constitution, and what it's supposed to. stand for." um to allow this to happen. But, you know, here we are. So, now it.

looks like it's probably a fat comp plea. because Donald Trump has been having, you know, people work overtime to make. sure the ballroom gets finished before. the Supreme Court can take on the the. the case in earnest on the merits. Right. now, this is still they're doing it on. the fly. It's shadow docket. They really. don't know how the litigation is going. to shake out. But if the litigation. shakes out, as I suspect it will, that. this was lawless and unconstitutional,

what is the Supreme Court going to do? Are they going to order him to tear it. down? I think that extremely unlikely. So right now, a fivej justice majority. of the Supreme Court is letting Donald. Trump get away with acting lawlessly and. unconstitutionally and spending our tax. dollars on his vanity ballroom. that has not been approved by Congress. No funds have been authorized, appropriated by Congress, which is. required under the law. But you know.

what? When you're president, five. Supreme Court justices let you do it. If the National Trust for Historic. Preservation of the United States. doesn't have standing, then who in the. world does have standing? And and I have. a follow-up to that question, which is. there are a number of cases where. somebody might not have had standing or. it wasn't the issue that was presented. at the Supreme Court, but the Supreme. Court decided that they wanted to hear. that question anyway. you know, the the.

issue of section two of the Voting. Rights Act was not an issue that was. being litigated in front of the Supreme. Court. They wanted to hear it. And then, of course, we knew once they brought. that issue up that they were just. planning on gutting it anyway. But that. wasn't the issue that they were hearing. that was being argued in that case, they. decided that they needed to go a step. further. And so if they have enough. sense to say, "Okay, well, it's likely. illegal, but the National Trust for. Historic Preservation doesn't have. standing," why couldn't they go the tiny.

step forward and say, "But here's who. does have standing. Let's have them. litigate this case." Uh, if they're able. to kind of show some autonomy in other. cases, why would they allow something. that is in their own words likely. illegal to move forward here? >> Yeah, I can answer that question. And. the answer is that the courts, not just. the Supreme Court, but all courts and. all judges don't render advisory. opinions. What that translates to, Brian, is even though it, you know, it. makes perfect sense for them to say,

however, the following person or. organization would have standing. They. don't render those kind of advisory. opinions. They don't nudge people into. filing lawsuits. But to answer your. original question, who has standing? Congress has standing. Why? Because. Congress is having its powers just. completely eviscerated. Um, Congress is. the one, as we all know, with the power. of the purse. They are the only ones who. can authorize by legislation the tearing.

down of a federal building or the. building of a federal building. And only. Congress can authorize that money, our. tax dollars be spent. They have to. appropriate funds for the construction. of a federal building. What did we learn. in some of the reporting in recent. weeks? Donald Trump originally promised. it was all going to be entirely funded. by, you know, private people and. organizations, which turned out not to. be true. Also, that probably would not.

have been illegal because there are. actually rules and laws governing. whether the government can just take. private donations and do with that money. what it pleases. But Brian, what we. learned in some of the reporting is that. the administration, the Trump. administration, actually shifted some. money that had been appropriated to the. Secret Service for its operations, and. they moved it into some kind of a. construction budget for Donald Trump's. Vanity Ballroom. Also a violation of.

Congress's right to appropriate funds. So, Congress could easily bring suit. Now, will the Republicans who have. control of both houses ever ever assert. its own damn power that it enjoys. courtesy of the Constitution? Or will. they just let Trump continue to walk all. over them, you know, like their damn. throw rugs? I think we know the answer. to that question. A quick note here for. those who are watching. If you'd like to.

continue to stay on top of this story. and all other legal news, the best way. to do that is to subscribe to both of. our channels. I'm going to put those. links in the post description of this. video. Totally free to subscribe, but a. great way to stay on top of this news. and support our work. Glenn, if Congress. has standing to bring about uh a lawsuit. against what Donald Trump is doing here, my two questions are, can they bring. about a lawsuit from the minority? And. also, if the answer is no, that they. have to wait until the they're in the. majority, does that mean that in just a. few months when Democrats hopefully.

regain the majority, that once they have. the gables, they'll be able to do. exactly that? Yeah. So, I I'm going to. answer the first question tentatively. because I am not an expert on. congressional rules and procedures. My. understanding is the majority would have. to vote in favor of bringing the. lawsuit. So, I I don't think the Dems, think about this, if the Dems could. assert the rights of Congress and bring. lawsuits, there would probably be a. hundred lawsuits that would have been.

filed over the past year and a half or. two years since Trump regained power. So, I I think I'm on firm ground saying. that the minority does not have the. ability to bring a lawsuit against the. executive branch. Um, now once the. midterms roll around, and I think, you. know, we're going to see an unstoppable. blue wave, notwithstanding Donald. Trump's most nefarious efforts to. interfere in the midterm elections in. all ways, large and small. And then I. think you're going to see a couple of. things. You're going to see lawsuits.

being brought and you're going to see. investigations. You're going to see. impeachment inquiries. So, um, hopefully. that form of accountability, the. accountability, uh, ball will begin. rolling once the Dems take control of. the House. But let me do this just. because I really want to put an. exclamation point on what Chief Justice. John Roberts said, what we are now. experiencing, the lawlessness of the. Trump administration. He says, quote, and this is the minority opinion, four.

justices. Quote, "The president ordered. the demolition of the east wing of the. White House to make way for a new. privately funded state ballroom in its. place. Construction of the ballroom has. proceeded a pace for the better part of. a year. That construction is likely. unlawful.". But then that five justice majority went. on to basically not even push back on.

the legality or constitutionality of. what Trump was doing. But they did hang. their hat on what could be called the. technicality standing. It's an important. principle. But I happen to believe as. the minority did and as you gave voice. to a couple of minutes ago, of course. the trust has standing. It's kind of. what they exist to do. protect historic. buildings in Washington DC. So, you. know, this is another opinion that I. think, you know, runs a foul of both the.

rule of law and the Constitution. I. wonder if uh if there would be a fun. thought experiment to do where uh you. know the next Democratic president just. started bulldozing the Supreme Court and. uh and then you have the National uh uh. Trust for Historic Preservation come in. and try to defend the Supreme Court and. then you know say well I thought they. didn't have standing to to to do this. and then if the only entity that has. standing is Congress and if Congress is. in democratic hands then what's going to.

happen? Are you saying the next. Democratic president can just bulldoze. the US Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. and Samuel Alo and Neil Gorsuch and Amy. Coney Barrett? >> You know, Brian, if we wait for. consistency to come from those six, you. know, right-wing ideologues on the. Supreme Court, we're going to grow old. waiting for that. You know, yeah, there's a a goose gander thing there. But, you know, if Barack Obama or Joe. Biden had done one 1 millionth of what.

Donald Trump is doing, I mean, they. would be calling not just for their. impeachment, but they would be calling. for them to be imprisoned and perhaps. worse, >> right? Uh, last question on this point, Glenn. The reality is that there is a. hole in the ground where the East Wing. of the White House used to be. And so, doesn't this in a way kind of uh inertia. Trump's benefit because now he's he's. getting some negative reinforcement here. in that he didn't ask for permission to. do this, but he's going to be allowed to. do it anyway just by virtue of the fact.

that logic would demand that we fill the. hole at the White House. You can't just. leave it there in perpetuity because he. didn't get permission, even though he. didn't get permission. And so, doesn't. this kind of teach him the wrong lesson. from all of this, which is you can do. whatever you want and then once you have. put the federal government in a position. where everybody has to allow it to move. forward because you just can't have a. hole in the grounds at the White House. grounds. Um, that kind of teaches him. that he doesn't actually have to ask for.

permission on any of these projects. because at the end of the day, he didn't. hear and he'll still get what he wants. They are rewarding his illegality, >> right? Plain and simple. Let me just. push back a little bit on the notion. that, well, you can't just have this big. gaping hole on White House grounds. You. know, that's a security issue. Well, you. know what, Brian? There was a big gaping. hole on White House grounds when Donald. Trump had an open air ultimate cage. match, you know, on White House grounds.

with planes flying overhead, completely. open air. And Donald Trump is prancing. around waving to everybody. And guess. what? It was entirely secure. In fact, there was some kind of a security. incident, I think, out by one of the. White House gates, and they took care of. that just fine in an open air arena, which proves two things. One, Donald. Trump is full of when he says we. can't possibly have um events on the.

White House grounds safely and securely. without a ballroom, a hermetically. sealed ballroom. Well, that's. because you just did. A and second, Brian, the whole notion of this. emergency litigation that ends up on the. shadow docket, which really is no way. for courts to go about deciding. important cases, is premised on the. notion that somebody is going to suffer. irreparable harm if something is not. done right now. And the reality is.

putting a stopwork order on the. construction of the White House um is. not going to do irreparable harm to the. ultimate building of the ballroom. In. fact, they can continue to have as many. safe and secure asinine open air events. on what the White House grounds even if. there is a temporary stop work order on. the construction of the ballroom. while.

the courts can actually thoughtfully and. fully resolve this case. Because what we. know right now is it seems like. virtually all of the justices, four of. them expressly, five of them implicitly. said, "Yeah, this is this is likely. illegal and unconstitutional." But you. know what, Donald, just keep going. And. goes right back to your point. They are. rewarding his illegality and. unconstitutionality. Well, we will of course stay on top of. this story. As soon as we have any.

update, we'll bring it to you. For those. who are watching, if you'd like to stay. on top of this news and support our. work, the best way to do that is to. subscribe to both of our channels. I'm. going to put those links right here on. the screen. Best way to support our. work, completely free to do so. So, if. you're not yet subscribed, please go. ahead and hit subscribe. I'm Brian. Taylor Cohen. >> and I'm Glenn Kersner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.