D.C. Circuit Hears Bid to Revive 90,000-Square-Foot White House Ballroom
Updated
Updated · Lawfare blog · Jun 9
D.C. Circuit Hears Bid to Revive 90,000-Square-Foot White House Ballroom
3 articles · Updated · Lawfare blog · Jun 9
Summary
More than an hour of D.C. Circuit arguments focused on the Trump administration’s push to stay or overturn an injunction that bars above-ground work on a planned White House ballroom while allowing security-related underground construction.
Government lawyer Yaakov Roth argued no court can halt the project once construction has begun, saying the National Trust lacks standing and that Congress already gave “express authority” through 3 U.S.C. § 105(d) and the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act.
Judge Patricia Millett sharply challenged that view, pressing Roth on whether the government could evade review by moving fast, and questioning shifting positions on whether the ballroom’s above-ground design is dictated by security work below ground.
The National Trust countered that 40 U.S.C. § 8106 requires specific congressional approval for new federal structures in Washington, and said the injunction leaves any genuine bunker or other below-ground security measures untouched.
The hearing highlighted a broader separation-of-powers fight: whether national-security claims can override Congress’s constitutional control over federal property and leave courts powerless to stop even unlawful construction.
Can executive action on federal property be unstoppable once construction begins, as government lawyers claim?
Could a ruling on the White House ballroom threaten other landmarks like the Statue of Liberty?
$400 Million White House Ballroom Project: Legal Showdown Over Executive Authority, Congressional Funding, and Historic Preservation
Overview
The White House ballroom project remains at a standstill as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the case, following a preliminary injunction that halted construction. The preservation group’s lawyer, Thaddeus Heuer, argued that the courts do have jurisdiction and that the president cannot proceed without congressional approval. He urged the court to keep the halt in place so Congress can decide on the project’s future. This legal battle highlights the ongoing conflict between executive power and congressional oversight, with the court’s upcoming decision set to shape the fate of the project and the balance of authority over federal property.