Supreme Court Considers White House Ballroom, Election Cases on Emergency Docket

Why it matters locally: The execution of William Frances Silvia in Florida hours after a Supreme Court decision highlights the direct impact of the court's emergency docket on state-level legal processes, particularly regarding capital punishment cases.

---

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court is actively reviewing several emergency docket applications, including a dispute over planned construction at the White House and requests related to mail-in voting regulations. On Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to halt a lower-court ruling. This ruling would temporarily stop the construction of a new White House ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a non-profit organization opposing the construction, filed a response on Tuesday. The organization requested the court uphold the existing ruling. Also on Tuesday, the court denied a request to stay the execution of William Frances Silvia. Silvia received a death sentence for the murder of his estranged wife, Patricia Silvia, and the attempted murder of her mother, Betty Woodard. Silvia was executed in Florida hours after the court's decision. Separately, the Trump administration submitted an emergency application to the Supreme Court on July 27. The application sought to allow the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states later filed a similar request. A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia, who are challenging the order, asked the court on August 3 to reject these applications. On Wednesday, the Trump administration urged the court to issue a prompt decision. In other judicial developments, a U.S. District Court judge on Tuesday lifted an order protecting approximately 5,000 Ethiopian nationals from deportation. Judge Brian Murphy's decision followed the Supreme Court's June 25 ruling in *Mullin v. Doe*, which allowed the Trump administration to end deportation protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals under the Temporary Protected Status program. Reuters reported that this action removes the last judicial block on the Department of Homeland Security's ability to terminate Temporary Protected Status for individual countries. James Percival, DHS general counsel, noted on social media that "All TPS terminations are in effect!" While the Ethiopian nationals face potential deportation, Judge Murphy's order allows them to continue legal challenges regarding whether DHS's action violated the Fifth Amendment due to racial or national origin animus. On Monday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to reinstate human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. A lower court order earlier this year found Garcia was the subject of a likely vindictive prosecution. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw concluded that DOJ officials abused their prosecuting power by bringing charges related to a 2022 traffic stop after Garcia's mistaken deportation to El Salvador last year. Garcia reentered the U.S. in June 2025 after the Supreme Court instructed the White House to facilitate his return. Federal prosecutors stated in their Monday filing that "[t]he government had an obvious interest in protecting the public by prosecuting Abrego after courts ordered his return." A 2018 Supreme Court ruling in *Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association* struck down a federal law prohibiting sports gambling in most of the country. This decision allowed states to authorize sports betting. Before the ruling, four states permitted some form of sports betting. One year later, 19 states and the District of Columbia authorized it. Currently, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have laws authorizing sports betting, with most allowing mobile wagers. SCOTUSblog columnists Joshua R. Averbach and Roy T. Englert, Jr. examined the implications of a 4-1-4 split in a hypothetical birthright citizenship case. They discussed how Supreme Court precedent, stating that the holding of the Court in cases without a majority opinion may be viewed as the position taken by members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds, is applied by lower courts and commentators. In another column for SCOTUSblog, Josh Blackman suggested that the Chief Justice should delegate duties such as presiding over oral arguments and private conferences. Blackman argued this reform would allow junior members a greater impact on the court's practices and prevent the Chief Justice from exercising powers for life.