{"id":543,"date":"2026-08-20T13:09:11","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T13:09:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543"},"modified":"2026-08-20T13:09:11","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T13:09:11","slug":"ballroom-dispute-now-fully-briefed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543","title":{"rendered":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we draw closer to the \u201clong conference\u201d on Sept. 28, our petitions page is filling up with notable petitions for review that are scheduled to be discussed. As Amy reported last year, over the past decade, the justices have granted between five and 15 petitions from this conference.<\/p>

Read more Florida Republicans bring Census Bureau challenge to the Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Friday, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to pause a lower-court ruling that would halt construction of a new White House ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the private nonprofit challenging the construction project, to this request on Tuesday, asking the court to leave the ruling in place. The matter is now fully briefed, so the court\u2019s response could come at any time.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

On July 27, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to clear the way for the implementation of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states later echoed this request in their own application. One week later, the group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order the court to deny these requests. Last week, the Trump administration the court to \u201cpromptly\u201d issue its decision.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Trump tells Supreme Court ‘unprecedented’ threats make ballroom vital<\/h3>

Maureen Groppe, USA Today<\/p>

In its final expected in the White House ballroom dispute, the Trump administration asserted that \u201c[f]inishing the president\u2019s $400 million ballroom is a national security \u2018imperative,\u2019\u201d and that \u201cany delay in the project \u2018presents unacceptable risk,\u2019\u201d according to USA Today. \u201cWhen the President, his staff, his family, and the White House complex are not fully secure, time is of the essence,\u201d wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. As USA Today noted, \u201c[u]nless the Supreme Court intervenes, a judge\u2019s order halting the above-ground portion of the project while the legal fight continues will go into effect on Aug. 21.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Border Agents Searched His Phone 5 Times Without a Warrant. He’s Asking the Supreme Court To Put a Stop to It.<\/h3>

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason<\/p>

In her newsletter for Reason, Elizabeth Nolan Brown highlighted a recently filed asking the Supreme Court to consider immigration agents\u2019 practice of \u201cseiz[ing] and search[ing] your stuff\u2014including your cellphone, your laptop, or any other electronic device\u2014without a warrant and without suspicion if you\u2019re around the border or flying into or out of the country.\u201d Are such searches constitutional? \u201cFederal courts have disagreed,\u201d according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the petitioner, George Anibowei, \u201can immigration lawyer and a naturalized U.S. citizen\u201d who \u201cfrequently travels internationally\u201d and has had his phone searched by immigration authorities five times over the past decade. \u201cTwo federal circuits hold that a warrant is generally required at the border, while six … hold that a warrant is never required.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Fourth Circuit upholds injunction barring immigration arrests at some houses of worship<\/h3>

Joe Dodson, Courthouse News Service<\/p>

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit an injunction preventing immigration officials from more freely conducting \u201cenforcement actions in places of worship,\u201d according to Courthouse News Service. \u201cThe injunction, sought by groups of Quakers, Sikhs and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, came after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security rescinded a longstanding policy of limiting immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship in January 2025.\u201d In the Tuesday opinion, \u201cSenior U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan agreed with the lower court that the new policy likely violates the plaintiffs\u2019 rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and their First Amendment right to expressive association,\u201d by, among other things, discouraging immigrants from attending worship. She rejected the government\u2019s claim that faith groups needed to prove that the policy change caused an attendance decline, citing \u201cthe Supreme Court\u2019s 2019 ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York<\/em>,\u201d on the first Trump administration\u2019s effort to add a citizenship question to the census, to explain her conclusion. In that case, Keenan wrote, the majority held that the states, counties and cities challenging the question needed only to show that it was likely to \u201creduce participation and lead to an inaccurate population count\u201d to have standing to bring their lawsuit.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Close Calls<\/h3>

David Cole, The New York Review<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a column for The New York Review, David Cole reflected on what we learned about the Supreme Court during the 2025-26 term, highlighting a gap he sees between conservative justices\u2019 willingness to constrain the president\u2019s power and the same justices\u2019 willingness to constrain their own. \u201c[W]hile the conservatives may not be doing Trump\u2019s bidding, they are pursuing their own ideological aims, often heedless of precedent,\u201d Cole wrote. In his view, such an approach to the law harms the country. \u201cLimits on presidential power are essential to a constitutional democracy, but so, too, are limits on the Court\u2019s power.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Florida Republicans bring Census Bureau challenge to the Supreme Court<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

A group of Florida Republicans has appealed a ruling by a federal court in that state throwing out a lawsuit seeking to require the U.S. Census Bureau to revise its data for the 2020 census. Arguing that the statistical methods the Census Bureau used in the 2020 census led to inaccurate results, the challengers told the justices that, \u201c[w]ith each decade the census strays further from\u201d what is required by the U.S. Constitution.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

The scope of the Supreme Court\u2019s emergency docket <\/h3>

By Kelsey Dallas<\/p>

On Aug. 12, an unusual emergency docket application captured court watchers\u2019 attention. It centered on a dog named Bruce who was scheduled to die. The case served as a reminder that the emergency docket consists of a wide \u2013 and likely growing \u2013 range of matters, not just the applications in capital cases and disputes over federal and state policies that most people think of when they consider this area of the court\u2019s work.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

Trump detention policy nears SCOTUS<\/h3>

By C\u00e9sar Cuauht\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez<\/p>

For his Immigration Matters column, C\u00e9sar Cuauht\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez explored the growing legal battle over \u201cwhether ICE can detain migrants who have been living in the United States without the government\u2019s permission for many years and refuse to let them ask an immigration judge for release.\u201d As he noted, the Supreme Court is likely to agree soon to weigh in on the issue.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Podcasts<\/h2>
Divided Argument<\/span>

A Thriving Atrocities Practice<\/h3>

Dan Epps and Will Baude discuss Justice Samuel Alito\u2019s summer interview, the new birthright-citizenship executive orders, and the Supreme Court\u2019s record-low approval numbers. Then, they dive deep on Cisco Systems v. Doe, the Falun Gong surveillance case that closed the door Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain left open for new Alien Tort Statute claims.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Amarica’s Constitution<\/span>

Preclearing the President<\/h3>

What happens when the president loses in court, even at the Supreme Court, but repeatedly attempts to fight the battle again? Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka reflect on this question as they wrap up their Roberts court constitutional survey.<\/p>

Read more Trump detention policy nears SCOTUS<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Closer Look<\/div>

Thompson v. Wilson<\/h3><\/div>

During the 2025-26 term, the Supreme Court handed down a significant ruling on personal location information and privacy, holding in Chatrie v. United States<\/em> that law enforcement\u2019s use of cellphone location data from Google constituted a \u201csearch\u201d under the Fourth Amendment. Now, the justices have another opportunity to weigh in on government use of modern tracking tools, though not in the context of criminal investigations. The pending petition for review instead centers on the lobstering industry in Maine.<\/p>

The dispute addressed in the petition dates back to 2022, when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which creates fishery management plans for 15 states and the District of Columbia, updated its guidance on fishing for lobsters and Jonah crabs to include boat-tracking. In response, the Maine Department of Marine Resources imposed a rule requiring federally permitted lobstermen (apparently a gender neutral term) to carry a tracking device on their vessels that collects location data once per minute anytime the vessels are in use.<\/p>

After Maine\u2019s rule took effect, a group of lobstermen challenged it in federal district court, asserting that the rule violated the Fourth Amendment\u2019s ban on \u201cunreasonable searches and seizures.\u201d They contended that Maine could accomplish its goal of tracking lobster fishing activity with more tailored surveillance, emphasizing that the devices required by the rule would monitor even personal boat trips unrelated to the lobster business.<\/p>

Maine moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the rule satisfies a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment for certain administrative searches \u2013 that is, inspections by government agencies \u2013 within closely regulated industries. U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. agreed that it served a \u201csubstantial government interest,\u201d including the requirement to keep trackers on during personal trips. \u201c[B]ecause it is essential that the data be accurate, the fact that lobstermen could forget to turn on the device would skew the results,\u201d he wrote. Woodcock granted Maine\u2019s motion to dismiss, but he \u201cencourage[d] the lobstermen to appeal\u201d to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit for \u201can authoritative ruling\u201d on the Fourth Amendment issues involved.<\/p>

One of the lobstermen, Frank Thompson, did just that, asking the 1st Circuit to review his Fourth Amendment claim. But in November, the appeals court affirmed Woodcock\u2019s decision, holding that Maine\u2019s tracking of lobster boats satisfies the three prongs of the Burger<\/em> test, which the Supreme Court established in 1987\u2019s New York v. Burger<\/em> for assessing whether an administrative search can take place without a warrant. To pass, the challenged inspections must: 1) stem from a regulatory scheme that serves a substantial government interest; 2) be necessary to further that scheme; and 3) must \u201cgive notice to those being regulated\u201d and be limited \u201cin terms of time, place, and scope.\u201d The 1st Circuit acknowledged that Maine\u2019s tracking scheme involves the near-constant collection of data when a boat is in motion \u2013 and thus does not appear, at first, to be limited \u2013 but concluded that it still passes the third prong because imposing a time limit \u201cwould frustrate the regime\u2019s design\u201d by enabling some boat trips to go untracked.<\/p>

In March, Thompson appealed to the Supreme Court, urging it to revisit its Fourth Amendment doctrine and clarify how to assess government inspections that impact not just business operations, but also noncommercial activity. \u201cThe First Circuit\u2019s decision to judge the reasonableness of 24\/7 government searches of private property based on business owners\u2019 reasonable expectations of privacy\u2014not on their core Fourth Amendment freedoms from trespass to property\u2014is precisely the kind of jurisprudential \u2018miasma\u2019 that this Court should clear up,\u201d Thompson asserts in his .<\/p>

Initially, Maine waived its right to respond to the petition, but, in early June, the court called for a response. In that , filed last month, the state contends that Thompson\u2019s petition \u201cfocuses on an argument he never raised to the First Circuit:\u201d that courts must go beyond the Burger<\/em> test when assessing a challenged government inspection. \u201cIn sum,\u201d the state writes, \u201cthe Petition presents a variety of reasons that weigh against granting it: unpreserved issues not addressed below; hypothetical questions that would not affect the case at hand; and arguments grounded in fundamental misconceptions of applicable precedent.\u201d<\/p>

Thompson v. Wilson<\/em> is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their \u201clong conference\u201d on Sept. 28.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cAre you sure you want what you’re asking for? What if we go ahead and decide this case and rule against you?\u201d<\/p>

MR. BISHOP: Well, we are \u2013 we are hoping that you rule \u2013 you’ll rule with us. And certainly, on the basis of this rule \u2013\u201d<\/p>

Read more The scope of the Supreme Court\u2019s emergency docket<\/a><\/p>

(Laughter.)<\/p>

JUSTICE SCALIA: \u201cThat’s usually the objective.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2012)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, a group of Florida Republicans brings their Census Bureau challenge to SCOTUS.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,22,19,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amaricas-constitution","category-contributor-corner","category-divided-argument","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nBallroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, a group of Florida Republicans brings their Census Bureau challenge to SCOTUS.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/ab577f17be2116123cff73a8bacbfd16.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543\"},\"wordCount\":1992,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Amarica's Constitution\",\"Contributor Corner\",\"Divided Argument\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543\",\"name\":\"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=543#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, a group of Florida Republicans brings their Census Bureau challenge to SCOTUS.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/ab577f17be2116123cff73a8bacbfd16.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed","datePublished":"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543"},"wordCount":1992,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Amarica's Constitution","Contributor Corner","Divided Argument","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543","name":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-20T13:09:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=543#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ballroom dispute now fully briefed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/543\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}