Will lawsuit stop UFC Freedom 250 at White House? Legal experts weigh in
· Yahoo Sports
A federal lawsuit seeking to stop the UFC Freedom 250 event from being held at the White House on June 14 might be remembered as a footnote.
Visit umafrika.club for more information.
Unless the lawsuit succeeds in its goal of bringing down one of the most audacious sporting events in history and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 80th birthday.
What are the chances of that?
USA TODAY Sports spoke to two law professors with expertise in cases involving public land. The White House, public property, is a central part of the complaint that initiated the lawsuit filed June 6 in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.
"This complaint lays out in a careful way the laws that apply and how they've been violated here," Matthew Sanders, an assistant professor of law and co-director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, told USA TODAY Sports.
Daniel Rohlf, a law professor and co-founder of Earthrise Law Center at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, said of the complaint, "It does raise some plausible concerns about violations of the law." But, he added, "From a legal perspective, the plaintiffs are looking at a really big challenge."
The weigh-ins for the mixed martial arts event are scheduled to take place June 13 at the Lincoln Memorial.
The seven-fight card is set to start at 8 p.m. ET the next day.
The clock ticks.
What's next in UFC White House event lawsuit?
First, the basics:
The Public Integrity Project, which filed the lawsuit, has called UFC Freedom 250 "a corrupt scheme to hand the White House South Lawn and Lincoln Memorial to a private, for-profit sports promoter in violation of federal law."
UFC is promoting the event.
The plaintiffs are Paul Romano, a Vietnam War veteran, and Susan Douglas, a longtime civil activist and organizer. Both live in Virginia and work to preserve Washington's monumental spaces, according to the Public Integrity Project.
The defendants are the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of Interior, which according to the complaint authorized the use of both the South Lawn and the Lincoln Memorial for the UFC Freedom 250 event, as well as associated construction of the 92-foot tall, 600-ton arena. Or "The Claw," as the UFC calls the structure.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for emergency relief – either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction – on June 7.
The initial steps will revolve around the plaintiffs' motion for emergency relief – either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, either of which would serve to stop the UFC event from taking place as scheduled.
Judge Amit Mehta, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has instructed the government defendants to file their opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for emergency relief by 9 p.m. ET June 9.
The plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion is due at 9 p.m. ET June 10.
After both parties have responded, the judge will weigh the merits of all arguments against established law and make a determination on whether the event will be halted.
Either side could possibly appeal the court’s order, asking the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to step in, according to Sanders, the Stanford professor. But he also said such an appeal would face very tight timing.
To get a temporary restraining order or any other injunction, the plaintiffs must show they'll suffer irreparable harm if the event is held. They'll also have to show the likelihood of the case succeeding on its merits and how harm to the plaintiffs outweighs the benefit of holding the event.
Cautioned Rohlf, "And I think judges will be somewhat wary about if the government very vociferously argues that this is part of a celebration for the United States. I think courts find that fairly weighty even if the exact nature of the celebration isn't quite aesthetically what a judge might agree with. So I think those standards for injunctive relief also are going to impose fairly high hurdles for the plaintiffs in this case."
Strengths of the lawsuit challenging the UFC White House event
A 92-foot tall, 600-ton arena built for the UFC event sits on the South Lawn without legal approval from Congress.
There is precedent.
In April, a federal judge issued an order to halt construction of Trump's $400 million ballroom project at the White House because Trump proceeded without approval from Congress. In May, a federal judge ordered the removal of Trump's name from the title of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts because Trump's name was installed without Congressional approval.
A second claim in the complaint is that there was no compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which calls for environmental impact statement or an environmental analysis.
Yet another claim says the Trump administration exceeded what’s permissible on public land without getting approval from the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, also known as America250, a body appointed by Congress.
"I think the plaintiffs have done a nice job of artfully pleading claims that could apply to different characterizations that the federal defendants may apply to this event," Rohlf said.
Sanders said the complaint helps demonstrate the Trump administration has undertaken a series of actions similar to those involving the White House ballroom and the Kennedy Center.
"The courts may as a result of that just be inherently more skeptical of things that the administration is doing," Sanders said.
Hurdles for UFC White House event lawsuit to clear
The government will challenge the claims, and perhaps convincingly.
Though Trump has mused about keeping the arena on White House grounds permanently, the government likely will argue it’s a temporary structure and, as a result, did not need approval from Congress to be erected on public land.
Another likely argument is UFC Freedom 250 is a private event, and so it’s exempt from approval of the Congressionally-appointed America250 commission.
Other hurdles the plaintiffs face involve the balance of the equities, assessing the plaintiff's harm versus the public’s interest in deciding whether to grant an injunction.
"... I think those standards for injunctive relief also are going to impose fairly high hurdles for the plaintiffs in this case,” Rohlf said.
To be granted injunctive relief, the plaintiffs also must show the likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
The required standing: Plaintiffs must show they're harmed
A critical element in this case and others is standing, the "party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right," according to Black’s Law Dictionary.
"So in order to have standing to even bring a lawsuit, someone must suffer actual injury from the events that they're complaining of," Rohlf said, noting that in this case the plaintiffs essentially bring up "aesthetic injuries."
Rohlf said he was reluctant to characterize the plaintiffs' chances of success in court. But, he added, "Put it this way, I've failed to show irreparable harm in my work with our environmental law clinic when fish are dying or trees are getting cut down or things like that. It can be quite challenging to convince the court that your clients are facing irreparable harm."
Douglas, the activist and organizer, is nearly 70 and has painful osteoarthritis in both knees, according to the complaint, which says the pain has been magnified by the closures and access restrictions related to UFC Freedom 250.
"The erection of the Claw and other structures for UFC Freedom 250 is causing and will continue to cause Douglas aesthetic injury by diminishing the personal enjoyment, experience of beauty, and feelings of national pride she previously experienced when observing the White House," according to the complaint.
Romano, the Vietnam veteran, is concerned weigh-ins at the Lincoln Memorial will "likely involve sound amplification, and so will disturb the tranquility of the nearby Vietnam Veterans Memorial," according to the complaint.
To borrow from non-UFC lexicon, is this lawsuit a Hail Mary or a slam dunk?
"I think the honest answer," Sanders said, "is that it's somewhere in between."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: UFC White House event faces lawsuit as date nears. Can it be stopped?