The U.S. government filed its opposition to a request to halt the UFC White House event Sunday. The White House claims that the lawsuit was filed too late and should not be entertained. Notwithstanding they cite former precedent to sporting events on the premises and says the UFC broke no laws.
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the National Park Service did not follow protocol when it allowed the UFC to build on the White House South Lawn. In addition, they claim that congressional authority was needed in order to hold events on public lands including the White House and Lincoln Memorial. Finally, they claimed that a study was never made on the environmental impact statement on the lawn which TKO claims it will replace.
Embarrassingly, the government argues the fact that TKO has expended time and money on the event. Thus, it would outweigh the plaintiffs’ harm. This is in line with the argument that they filed the lawsuit too late. Head’s up. There’s no real deadline for filing this lawsuit and clearly it was done strategically so that news of the lawsuit would come out during fight week. Certainly, they could have filed the lawsuit earlier this year, but the effect of it would not be nearly as impactful as getting the publicity the week of the fights.
Notably, one of the arguments that the government uses that circumvents its belief that it did not have to go through standard protocol in getting approval for erecting the “claw” is that it would be temporary. However, the president has gone out to say that it could be permanent.
Payout Perspective:
The reply brief from the plaintiffs is due on Wendesday night. The judge in charge will have the opportunity to review the briefing and determine if a hearing is needed. One would think a hearing would be granted but due to the exigent circumstances it may just make a judgment based on the briefs. The government brief relies on the fact that the request for an injunction seems “too late” to make. But, if you look at the brie by the government, they have flimsy legal precedent and just relying on the “Trump wants it” argument. We will see soon which way this goes.
Leave a Reply