{"id":151300,"date":"2026-05-15T15:45:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-15T23:45:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/15\/looks-like-trump-dictated-another-barely-coherent-ballroom-brief\/"},"modified":"2026-05-15T15:45:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-15T23:45:14","slug":"looks-like-trump-dictated-another-barely-coherent-ballroom-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/15\/looks-like-trump-dictated-another-barely-coherent-ballroom-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Looks Like Trump Dictated Another Barely Coherent Ballroom Brief"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice filed a motion in the White House ballroom litigation<\/a> that read suspiciously like the a case of lawyers throwing up their hands and just hitting \u201cfile\u201d on the their client\u2019s dementia-addled markup. And, but for the fact that Donald Trump is not the Department of Justice\u2019s client, that pretty much nails it. The brief defined \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d ranted about \u201cBarack Hussein Obama,\u201d and included a series of nonsense tangents. One might have hoped that brief would prove an aberration and the people with law degrees might take over again on reply.<\/p>\n

Well, the good news for all of us is that the DOJ seems to have gone right back to Trump for an encore.<\/p>\n

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward signed a seven-page reply brief<\/a> in the ballroom case that doubles down on the Truth Social school of drafting. \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome\u201d is back, baby!<\/p>\n

\n

The \u201cNational Trust for Historic Preservation\u201d\u2014which, again, is not a government agency of any type\u2014never once denies that its lawsuit is motivated by an irrational desire to stop anything associated with President Donald J. Trump, which even Democrat elected officials have labeled as \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d or TDS.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This sets up a footnote citing to Senator John Fetterman, continuing his tour bragging that he\u2019s not as liberal ever since he suffered a traumatic stroke \u2014 which is not the flex conservatives think it is.<\/p>\n

\n

If the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom had been the idea of any other President, no lawsuit would have been filed, let alone given rise to an injunction. National Security requires unimpeded construction of the Presidential Ballroom, without disruption or delay.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cMilitarily Top Secret Ballroom.\u201d Note that the lawyers aren\u2019t even able to make line edits to clean up Trump\u2019s made-up phrases. The mainstream media spends more time rewriting Trump\u2019s quotes to sound coherent than his own DOJ does.<\/p>\n

The brief continues its quixotic effort to conflate an underground security complex with an eyesore of a ballroom where the East Wing used to be. \u201c[I]t is now crystal clear that the entire<\/em> cohesive, integrated, knitted and complex Project <\/em>is necessary to ensure National Security and Presidential safety,\u201d the brief asserts, without ever providing a reason<\/em> why this is crystal clear. The court issued an injunction because there was never an explanation why an underground bunker needed to have a ballroom over it and \u2014 now a full briefing cycle later \u2014 there still isn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n

\n

This Project as a whole, with one venting system, one electrical system, one plumbing system, one security system, one air conditioning and heating system and, very importantly, one structural system, will ensure that events like the assassination attempt of Butler, PA, West Palm Beach, FL and at the Washington Hilton on April 25th do not happen again.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except the ballroom wouldn\u2019t be much help to a president campaigning in Pennsylvania. Or golfing in Florida. Or even choosing to attend the White House Correspondents\u2019 Dinner, which \u2014 again \u2014 could not be held in the new proposed ballroom, because Trump\u2019s proposal is not big enough to host the WHCD<\/em>. The new ballroom has a capacity under 1,000 \u2014 the WHCD brings together over 2,500 guests.<\/p>\n

The reply engages in some Freudian projection, ripping the opposition as \u201cBereft of legal arguments,\u201d a vocabulary decision that must have worked its way in while Trump nodded off like he keeps doing on camera. But the opposition\u2019s argument, presented over a straightforward four pages, took the government to task for failing to even attempt a legal argument, relying instead on vague citations about how injunctions work.<\/p>\n

\n

And Plaintiff was<\/em> asked not to bring and prosecute this suit\u2014just look at the numerous briefs where Defendants have strongly and convincingly argued about the National Security interests and demanded that Plaintiff drop this suit, including as recently as the day after an assassin attempted to murder dozens of officials and members of the public. See <\/em>Definition of \u201cBring,\u201d Merriam-Webster Dictionary (\u201cto convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They cited the dictionary definition of \u201cbring.\u201d The Acting Attorney General of the United States signed a court filing with the definition of \u201cbring.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiff falsely claims that Defendants\u2019 motion includes \u201cad hominem attacks,\u201d ECF No. 80 at 1, but not one such \u201cattack\u201d is specifically identified. Plaintiff never disputes its lawsuit is motivated by Trump Derangement Syndrome. To the extent Plaintiff means the reference to Attorney Craig, nobody can dispute that he served as White House Counsel for \u201cBarack Hussein Obama,\u201d Strunk v. U.S. Dep\u2019t of State<\/em>, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112, 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (Leon, J.). It is interesting that Plaintiff might consider that relationship to be an \u201cad hominem\u201d attack.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cPlaintiff never disputes its lawsuit is motivated by Trump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d is first-ballot Litigation Hall of Fame material. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nothing about this motion makes any sense. Judge Leon\u2019s preliminary injunction is currently on appeal at the D.C. Circuit. The district court has been divested of jurisdiction. The DOJ is asking Leon, under Rule 62.1, to issue an \u201cindicative ruling\u201d that he would dissolve his own injunction if the Circuit kicked the case back. Except there\u2019s no new evidence here. Someone trying to attack a different hotel ballroom does not give a president the authority to unilaterally rebuild a national monument. The fact that the attack was unsuccessful<\/em> only underscores how unnecessary a new ballroom would be. <\/p>\n

But look, the problem isn\u2019t the legal theory \u2014 as frivolous as it may be. It\u2019s that none of this is how Stanley Woodward or Trent McCotter or Todd Blanche writes. This is how one specific person writes, and that person is not admitted to any bar.<\/p>\n

When lawyers sign a brief, they certify under Rule 11 that it\u2019s grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for extending it. Letting the client vomit their social media posts into a court filing runs right up against that. <\/p>\n

No wonder the DOJ is hot to block disciplinary authorities from probing ethical violations by government lawyers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(Check out the brief on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Files Ballroom Brief That Reads Like Truth Social Post \u2014 Because Trump Probably Wrote It<\/a>
DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Holding Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Looks Like Trump Dictated Another Barely Coherent Ballroom Brief<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Photo by Win McNamee\/Getty Images)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice filed a motion in the White House ballroom litigation<\/a> that read suspiciously like the a case of lawyers throwing up their hands and just hitting \u201cfile\u201d on the their client\u2019s dementia-addled markup. And, but for the fact that Donald Trump is not the Department of Justice\u2019s client, that pretty much nails it. The brief defined \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d ranted about \u201cBarack Hussein Obama,\u201d and included a series of nonsense tangents. One might have hoped that brief would prove an aberration and the people with law degrees might take over again on reply.<\/p>\n

Well, the good news for all of us is that the DOJ seems to have gone right back to Trump for an encore.<\/p>\n

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward signed a seven-page reply brief<\/a> in the ballroom case that doubles down on the Truth Social school of drafting. \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome\u201d is back, baby!<\/p>\n

\n

The \u201cNational Trust for Historic Preservation\u201d\u2014which, again, is not a government agency of any type\u2014never once denies that its lawsuit is motivated by an irrational desire to stop anything associated with President Donald J. Trump, which even Democrat elected officials have labeled as \u201cTrump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d or TDS.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This sets up a footnote citing to Senator John Fetterman, continuing his tour bragging that he\u2019s not as liberal ever since he suffered a traumatic stroke \u2014 which is not the flex conservatives think it is.<\/p>\n

\n

If the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom had been the idea of any other President, no lawsuit would have been filed, let alone given rise to an injunction. National Security requires unimpeded construction of the Presidential Ballroom, without disruption or delay.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cMilitarily Top Secret Ballroom.\u201d Note that the lawyers aren\u2019t even able to make line edits to clean up Trump\u2019s made-up phrases. The mainstream media spends more time rewriting Trump\u2019s quotes to sound coherent than his own DOJ does.<\/p>\n

The brief continues its quixotic effort to conflate an underground security complex with an eyesore of a ballroom where the East Wing used to be. \u201c[I]t is now crystal clear that the entire<\/em> cohesive, integrated, knitted and complex Project <\/em>is necessary to ensure National Security and Presidential safety,\u201d the brief asserts, without ever providing a reason<\/em> why this is crystal clear. The court issued an injunction because there was never an explanation why an underground bunker needed to have a ballroom over it and \u2014 now a full briefing cycle later \u2014 there still isn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n

\n

This Project as a whole, with one venting system, one electrical system, one plumbing system, one security system, one air conditioning and heating system and, very importantly, one structural system, will ensure that events like the assassination attempt of Butler, PA, West Palm Beach, FL and at the Washington Hilton on April 25th do not happen again.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except the ballroom wouldn\u2019t be much help to a president campaigning in Pennsylvania. Or golfing in Florida. Or even choosing to attend the White House Correspondents\u2019 Dinner, which \u2014 again \u2014 could not be held in the new proposed ballroom, because Trump\u2019s proposal is not big enough to host the WHCD<\/em>. The new ballroom has a capacity under 1,000 \u2014 the WHCD brings together over 2,500 guests.<\/p>\n

The reply engages in some Freudian projection, ripping the opposition as \u201cBereft of legal arguments,\u201d a vocabulary decision that must have worked its way in while Trump nodded off like he keeps doing on camera. But the opposition\u2019s argument, presented over a straightforward four pages, took the government to task for failing to even attempt a legal argument, relying instead on vague citations about how injunctions work.<\/p>\n

\n

And Plaintiff was<\/em> asked not to bring and prosecute this suit\u2014just look at the numerous briefs where Defendants have strongly and convincingly argued about the National Security interests and demanded that Plaintiff drop this suit, including as recently as the day after an assassin attempted to murder dozens of officials and members of the public. See <\/em>Definition of \u201cBring,\u201d Merriam-Webster Dictionary (\u201cto convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

They cited the dictionary definition of \u201cbring.\u201d The Acting Attorney General of the United States signed a court filing with the definition of \u201cbring.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Plaintiff falsely claims that Defendants\u2019 motion includes \u201cad hominem attacks,\u201d ECF No. 80 at 1, but not one such \u201cattack\u201d is specifically identified. Plaintiff never disputes its lawsuit is motivated by Trump Derangement Syndrome. To the extent Plaintiff means the reference to Attorney Craig, nobody can dispute that he served as White House Counsel for \u201cBarack Hussein Obama,\u201d Strunk v. U.S. Dep\u2019t of State<\/em>, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112, 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (Leon, J.). It is interesting that Plaintiff might consider that relationship to be an \u201cad hominem\u201d attack.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cPlaintiff never disputes its lawsuit is motivated by Trump Derangement Syndrome,\u201d is first-ballot Litigation Hall of Fame material. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nothing about this motion makes any sense. Judge Leon\u2019s preliminary injunction is currently on appeal at the D.C. Circuit. The district court has been divested of jurisdiction. The DOJ is asking Leon, under Rule 62.1, to issue an \u201cindicative ruling\u201d that he would dissolve his own injunction if the Circuit kicked the case back. Except there\u2019s no new evidence here. Someone trying to attack a different hotel ballroom does not give a president the authority to unilaterally rebuild a national monument. The fact that the attack was unsuccessful<\/em> only underscores how unnecessary a new ballroom would be. <\/p>\n

But look, the problem isn\u2019t the legal theory \u2014 as frivolous as it may be. It\u2019s that none of this is how Stanley Woodward or Trent McCotter or Todd Blanche writes. This is how one specific person writes, and that person is not admitted to any bar.<\/p>\n

When lawyers sign a brief, they certify under Rule 11 that it\u2019s grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a non-frivolous argument for extending it. Letting the client vomit their social media posts into a court filing runs right up against that. <\/p>\n

No wonder the DOJ is hot to block disciplinary authorities from probing ethical violations by government lawyers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(Check out the brief on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Files Ballroom Brief That Reads Like Truth Social Post \u2014 Because Trump Probably Wrote It<\/a>
DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Holding Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice filed a motion in the White House ballroom litigation that read suspiciously like the a case of lawyers throwing up their hands and just hitting \u201cfile\u201d on the their client\u2019s dementia-addled markup. And, but for the fact that Donald Trump is not the Department of Justice\u2019s client, that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}