Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court incorrectly applied a rule to give Trump his ballroom

To the editor: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority stated that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought to stop the president’s attempt to alter the White House had “no standing” to sue (“Supreme Court, in 5-4 vote, clears way for Trump’s new ballroom,” Aug. 31). “Standing to sue” means the plaintiff has the legal right to bring an action because he or she has suffered an injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct that is capable of being redressed by the court. Accordingly, it stands to reason that any citizen has the right to sue regarding alleged damage to a building owned by the people in the country, such as the White House.

Instead of addressing the fact that the president had no standing or right to alter the building without congressional approval, the court inaccurately applied the “standing to sue” rule in order to avoid having to make the painful but correct decision against the unauthorized actions of the president.

Barry Rubin, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: The “grand ballroom” will probably be completed by the time SCOTUS determines its legality.

I suggest that Congress pass legislation to set the criteria for its use and naming. I would like to see this great room designated as a multi-use facility available to all Americans for special events for a nominal fee when it is not being used for state dinners. Maybe we could call it the “American Room” as a representation of “we the people.”

June Thompson, Los Angeles