Trump asks Supreme Court to let White House ballroom construction continue during appeal

President Donald Trump’s administration has sought intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court to permit continued construction of a controversial $400 million ballroom project at the White House while an appeal proceeds. The request comes after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled earlier this month that the project requires congressional approval and cannot proceed without it. The administration filed its petition with the Supreme Court on Friday, asking the justices to delay enforcement of the appellate court’s decision until the high court can weigh in. Chief Justice John Roberts gave the opposing parties until Tuesday to respond to the request. The appellate court’s ruling, issued last week, halted above-ground construction of the proposed ballroom, citing the lack of legislative authorization for the project. The panel consisted of three judges, with a 2-1 split against continuing the work. The majority argued that the president lacks unilateral power to construct a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in the area previously occupied by the White House’s East Wing, which was demolished in late 2022. They emphasized that such decisions fall under the purview of Congress rather than executive action. The lower court had paused its initial order for two weeks to allow the administration to seek a Supreme Court stay. Solicitor General D. John Sauer requested that the high court consider the stay petition before the appellate court’s August 21 deadline for the ruling to take effect. In his filing, Sauer described the court’s decision as an “extraordinary and unlawful injunction” that threatens the completion of a “totally secure ballroom space” deemed essential for national security. He emphasized that the project includes not just the ballroom itself but also military infrastructure and other critical components necessary for the White House’s operations. The controversy began in April when a federal district court judge ordered a temporary halt to above-ground construction of the ballroom. However, the judge allowed the continuation of underground work, including the building of bunkers, military installations, and medical facilities. This distinction has been central to the ongoing legal battle. The D.C. Circuit panel upheld the district court’s decision, aligning with historic preservation groups that opposed the project. The majority stated that whether to construct a large ballroom is a decision reserved for Congress, not the executive branch. Both judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents. Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump, dissented, arguing that the preservationist group lacked the legal standing to challenge the project. She criticized the lower court for prioritizing the “aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby” over the nation’s security concerns. The Trump administration maintains that the president has the sole authority to renovate the White House, asserting that the current state of the project, essentially an open construction site, compromises the security of the White House. The Justice Department claims that the National Trust for Historic Preservation does not have the legal right to intervene in the matter. In response to the administration’s latest move, the National Trust for Historic Preservation accused the White House of attempting to “outrun the courts.” It cited the administration’s accelerated construction schedule, including plans to install 1 million pounds of rebar and pour 3,000 cubic yards of concrete within the coming week. “We cannot allow the administration to evade the rule of law or frustrate judicial review,” the trust said in a statement. It called for an immediate halt to further construction until the legal dispute is resolved. During an earlier hearing in June, a government lawyer defended the administration’s position, suggesting that the president holds broad authority over public facilities. In a hypothetical scenario, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth claimed the government could even demolish landmarks like the Statue of Liberty or the White House itself, arguing that affected individuals would not have the legal standing to challenge such actions. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s consideration of the stay petition will determine whether the construction continues or faces another legal setback. With the appellate court’s deadline looming, the administration seeks clarity from the highest court in the land.