Construction of a ballroom at the White House is moving forward, even as a legal challenge to the project remains active in the courts. That arrangement, where disputed work continues while a lawsuit plays out, is sometimes called allowing action to proceed pending litigation. The Supreme Court made the call. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented alongside three liberal justices, writing that the construction is likely unlawful.
A dissent is a formal written objection a justice files when they disagree with the majority's conclusion. It does not overturn the ruling. Roberts' dissent carries particular weight here because he is the chief justice, the most senior member of the court, and he aligned with three liberal justices rather than his usual conservative colleagues. His language was unambiguous: "That construction is likely unlawful."
Four justices now have that view on the record. The majority allowed construction to continue anyway. That is the immediate, practical result.
The permission to build while the lawsuit proceeds is not a declaration that the ballroom is legal. The court has only declined to stop work while the lower courts handle the case. The lawsuit is still active. Roberts' dissent is the clearest signal yet of where at least part of the court stands on the underlying question. "Likely unlawful" is the phrase that will follow this project through every subsequent stage of litigation. Whether a majority of the court eventually shares that view is what the ongoing case is positioned to answer.