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 “file” on the their client’s dementia-addled markup. And, but for the fact that Donald Trump is not the Department of Justice’s client, that pretty much nails it. The brief defined “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama,” 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.
Well, the good news for all of us is that the DOJ seems to have gone right back to Trump for an encore.
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 in the ballroom case that doubles down on the Truth Social school of drafting. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is back, baby!
Keeping Law School Accessible When Federal Loans Fall Short
As federal borrowing caps tighten financing options for law students, one organization is stepping in to negotiate the terms they can't secure alone.
The “National Trust for Historic Preservation”—which, again, is not a government agency of any type—never 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 “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” or TDS.
This sets up a footnote citing to Senator John Fetterman, continuing his tour bragging that he’s not as liberal ever since he suffered a traumatic stroke — which is not the flex conservatives think it is.
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.
“Militarily Top Secret Ballroom.” Note that the lawyers aren’t even able to make line edits to clean up Trump’s made-up phrases. The mainstream media spends more time rewriting Trump’s quotes to sound coherent than his own DOJ does.
Has Legal Industry Upheaval Changed Your Career Goals?
We'd love to hear your thoughts. Enter for a chance to win a $250 gift card.
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. “[I]t is now crystal clear that the entire cohesive, integrated, knitted and complex Project is necessary to ensure National Security and Presidential safety,” the brief asserts, without ever providing a reason 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 — now a full briefing cycle later — there still isn’t one.
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.
Except the ballroom wouldn’t be much help to a president campaigning in Pennsylvania. Or golfing in Florida. Or even choosing to attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which — again — could not be held in the new proposed ballroom, because Trump’s proposal is not big enough to host the WHCD. The new ballroom has a capacity under 1,000 — the WHCD brings together over 2,500 guests.
The reply engages in some Freudian projection, ripping the opposition as “Bereft of legal arguments,” a vocabulary decision that must have worked its way in while Trump nodded off like he keeps doing on camera. But the opposition’s 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.
And Plaintiff was asked not to bring and prosecute this suit—just 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 Definition of “Bring,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded”).
They cited the dictionary definition of “bring.” The Acting Attorney General of the United States signed a court filing with the definition of “bring.”
Plaintiff falsely claims that Defendants’ motion includes “ad hominem attacks,” ECF No. 80 at 1, but not one such “attack” 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 “Barack Hussein Obama,” Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112, 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (Leon, J.). It is interesting that Plaintiff might consider that relationship to be an “ad hominem” attack.
“Plaintiff never disputes its lawsuit is motivated by Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is first-ballot Litigation Hall of Fame material.
Nothing about this motion makes any sense. Judge Leon’s 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 “indicative ruling” that he would dissolve his own injunction if the Circuit kicked the case back. Except there’s 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 only underscores how unnecessary a new ballroom would be.
But look, the problem isn’t the legal theory — as frivolous as it may be. It’s 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.
When lawyers sign a brief, they certify under Rule 11 that it’s 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.
No wonder the DOJ is hot to block disciplinary authorities from probing ethical violations by government lawyers.
(Check out the brief on the next page…)
Earlier: DOJ Files Ballroom Brief That Reads Like Truth Social Post — Because Trump Probably Wrote It
DOJ Sues D.C. Bar For Holding Trump Lawyers To Ethical Rules
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.