法官驳回阻止白宫举办UFC赛事的申请

Judge rejects bid to stop UFC fight at White House

2026-06-12T17:18:07.726Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/12/politics/white-house-freedom-250-ufc-fight-lawsuit

• A federal judge has rejected a request to block the UFC fight at the White House this weekend.
• Two Virginia residents argued the event circumvents federal permitting rules by claiming exemptions meant for America’s 250th birthday celebrations.
• The judge ruled the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the event, which has cost UFC more than $60 million.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

A federal judge has rejected a request from two Virginia residents to block President Donald Trump from hosting a UFC fight at the White House this weekend.

Friday afternoon’s decision from US District Judge Amit P. Mehta came in a case brought last weekend by two people in Virginia who argued the privately run event cannot be lawfully held on the White House’s South Lawn or the Lincoln Memorial, where other aspects of it are expected to take place Friday before the main event on Sunday.

The appointee of former President Barack Obama concluded that the two plaintiffs do not have the legal right — known as “standing” — to challenge the event. As a result, he made no ruling on the legality of the planned fight.

But he nonetheless acknowledged the administration’s claim that a ruling halting the event would cause substantial harm to the people involved in the event, including Trump, the fighters and thousands of spectators.

“And then there is the $60 million that the UFC and UFC-affiliated organizations have expended to put on the event,” the judge wrote. “The potential loss of those dollars resulting from a last-minute, court-ordered stoppage cannot be ignored.”

The plaintiffs – a political activist and a Vietnam War veteran – had argued that the event is being unlawfully held at the White House because officials are leaning on a federal rule that exempts events around America’s 250th birthday from having to follow certain permitting regulations.

The UFC event, they say, is not being held in honor of the country’s founding but is instead intended to celebrate Trump’s birthday, which also falls on Sunday. As a result, officials and the event’s private organizers should have had to jump through ordinary regulatory hoops, like conducting an environmental assessment, before moving ahead with it, the plaintiffs argued.

“The event is neither ‘for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of American Independence’ nor, crucially, being ‘planned, organized, and executed’ by the federal government,” lawyers representing the two plaintiffs wrote in court papers.

They zeroed in on the fact that the event is largely being executed by private entities and is not “official” in nature. The fight, they say, will instead enrich Trump, who has reportedly purchased stock in UFC’s parent company. The plaintiffs had asked Mehta to temporarily intervene to stop the event from taking place this weekend while more legal proceedings play out.

According to court documents provided by the Trump administration in this lawsuit, the event has cost UFC more than $60 million.

The UFC is responsible for “production, labor, construction, and promotion costs,” while the federal government is providing “emergency equipment and services, including first aid/medical services, law enforcement, and security,” White House management and administration director Joshua Fisher said in a sworn declaration. That includes “a substantial volume of perishable food items for the anticipated 4,000 South Lawn guests and over 120,000 Ellipse guests.”

It’s not yet clear how much those federal services are costing taxpayers.

In court filings defending the project this week, Justice Department lawyers told Mehta that he should not intervene on behalf of the two Virginians because, they argued, such a ruling would unfairly burden a host of parties on the other side of the case.

They pushed back strongly on claims that the administration was skirting federal permitting rules and violating various laws in its effort to stand up the event. Federal law, they asserted, does not require Congress to approve “temporary structures” on the White House grounds like the “claw,” as the Virginias had said.

“Temporary structures are ubiquitous on the White House grounds, erected for nearly every special event, yet nobody has ever before suggested that Congress somehow needs to pass legislation for every concert tent or Easter egg roll kiosk,” DOJ argued.

The administration said workers were expected to begin disassembling the “claw” starting Monday.

This story has been updated with additional details.