Apelacijski sud blokira Trampovu balnu dvoranu u Bijeloj kući, što dovodi do borbe na Vrhovnom sudu.

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump’s plan to build a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom in the White House’s East Wing lacks the necessary authority, requiring congressional approval instead. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, found that the $400 million project could not proceed without legislative backing. The ruling sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown over the issue. The court’s 2-1 decision came after a lower court had already blocked the project, citing similar concerns about the White House’s authority. The judges emphasized that Congress holds “full constitutional control” over federal property and its development, including the White House. They pointed out there was “no express or implied authorization” allowing the president to unilaterally demolish and reconstruct parts of the historic building. The judges stressed that each president is merely a “temporary tenant” of the White House, not its owner, and thus lacks constitutional power over its structure. The ruling specifically noted that no previous president had undertaken such a major alteration of the White House using private funds. The court acknowledged that while the project might be “desirable” from a policy perspective, the law required congressional approval. The decision temporarily halted further construction for 14 days, giving the government time to file an appeal. The judges made clear that this ruling does not preclude the possibility of constructing the ballroom in the future, but only under the condition that Congress authorizes the project. The majority opinion was authored by Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, both appointed by former presidents. Millett was nominated by Barack Obama, and Garcia by Joe Biden. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented. In her dissent, Rao argued that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which led the legal challenge against the project, did not have sufficient legal standing to sue. She criticized the lower court for what she described as “judicial overreach.” President Trump responded swiftly to the ruling, calling it “horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.” On his social media platform, Truth Social, he announced that the administration would immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. He claimed the ruling “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, in the White House,” though the specific risks were not elaborated upon. The case highlights broader tensions around executive power and the limits of presidential authority over federal property. Legal experts have noted that the outcome could influence future debates over how presidents can modify the White House and other federal buildings. The Supreme Court’s eventual involvement may determine whether the president can act independently on such matters or must seek legislative approval. As the administration prepares for its appeal, the focus shifts to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing. The justices will need to weigh the constitutional implications of the ruling and decide whether to uphold or overturn the appellate court’s decision. The outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations handle large-scale renovations or expansions of the White House. For now, the fate of the East Wing ballroom remains uncertain, pending the court’s final determination.