Sep 2, 2026 · 44 min
Three legal fights test Trump’s executive power
Trump's Ballroom, US Attorneys & Kalshi Loses
The disputes over presidential construction, acting prosecutors, and prediction markets expose competing limits on executive authority, congressional oversight, and federal regulation.
- 1The Supreme Court let White House ballroom construction continue after finding the challengers lacked standing, without deciding the project’s legality.
- 2Justice Department efforts to install acting U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation raise questions under the Vacancies Act and separation of powers.
- 3A Ninth Circuit ruling treating sports event contracts as state-regulated gambling conflicts with the Third Circuit’s decision favoring Kalshi.
Don't miss
The episode contrasts the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of Kalshi’s sports event contracts with the Third Circuit’s contrary ruling, creating a circuit split that could reach the Supreme Court.
The brief
The Supreme Court cleared the way for White House ballroom construction by rejecting the plaintiffs’ standing, leaving the project’s legality unresolved and sharpening questions about congressional control of federal property.
Tracy Fight Love and June Grosso examine whether rapid executive action can make judicial remedies ineffective, including possible challenges to the ballroom and other Trump administration projects.
Anne Joseph O’Connell explains why installing acting U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation has triggered disputes over the Vacancies Act, first assistants, delegation authority, and prosecutorial consequences.
The episode’s sharpest legal split concerns Kalshi: the Ninth Circuit treated sports event contracts as gambling subject to state regulation, while the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion.
Elliott Stein and Anne Joseph O’Connell consider why prediction markets prefer federal oversight, whether safeguards can prevent manipulation, and whether the conflict is headed to the Supreme Court.