“No one is holding Plaintiffs in a jiu jitsu lock, forcing them to watch UFC Freedom 250 against their wall,” government lawyers wrote. “The public interest does not favor allowing them to exercise a heckler’s veto, particularly at this late date.”
In response to a recently-filed lawsuit, a federal judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration is free to host an Ultimate Fighting Championship event on the White House’s South Lawn this coming weekend.
According to ABC News, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected a request to prevent the event from taking place. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Virginia residents who said that the Trump administration failed to obtain the authorization necessary to host the event.
In his ruling, Mehta noted that the plaintiffs failed “to establish a substantial likelihood of standing and irreparable harm” in their lawsuit.
The lawsuit had attempted to argue that the event—which includes a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial on Friday night, weigh-ins and a concert at the Ellipse, and a fight on the South Lawn on Sunday—violates National Park Service regulations.
Attorneys for the two Virginia residents behind the case also said that the Trump administration failed to obtain the correct permits and never performed a required environmental review.
“This is, fundamentally, a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”
The White House, in response, cast the lawsuit as an “obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory” attempt to prevent President Trump from hosting the event. Attorneys for the government also argued that the fight is “no different from the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”
Mehta, however, said that the plaintiffs were unable to show that they are “directly” and adversely “affected” by the event, despite their claim that the temporary arena is so “hideous” and “grotesque” that it inhibits their ability to enjoy the nation’s capital.
Even if they had been able to establish standing, Mehta said, the lawsuit provided few, if any, compelling examples of how the event would culminate in “irreparable harm.” Mehta further noted that there was an “unreasonable delay” between the White House’s public announcement of the event and the plaintiffs’ decision to take action.
ABC News notes that, as recently as Wednesday, lawyers for the Public Integrity Project called the event a “corrupt spectacle.”
“Such a volcano of corruption, if allowed to go forward, will mark an inflection point in American history,” they said.
But the Department of Justice argued that a UFC event is not all that different from the South Lawn Easter Egg Roll or the National Christmas Tree Lighting. They also reiterated that, even if the two plaintiffs were able to establish standing, they wouldn’t suffer any loss if the event were to take place as planned.
“No one is holding Plaintiffs in a jiu jitsu lock, forcing them to watch UFC Freedom 250 against their wall,” government lawyers wrote. “The public interest does not favor allowing them to exercise a heckler’s veto, particularly at this late date.”
Sources
Judge rejects legal effort to cancel White House’s UFC event
Lawsuit aims to block UFC fight on White House South Lawn for Trump’s birthday
Join the conversation!