Appeals Court Extends Deadline for White House Ballroom Construction Halt
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A federal appeals court has extended the deadline to halt construction of President Donald Trump's White House ballroom until April 17, allowing the administration time to seek Supreme Court review.
A federal appeals court has extended the deadline to halt construction of President Donald Trump's White House ballroom until April 17, providing the administration additional time to seek Supreme Court review. The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the ruling on Saturday, following a March 31 order by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon that paused the project pending congressional approval.
The appeals court's decision was divided, with Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia forming the majority opinion, while Judge Neomi Rao dissented. The majority raised questions about the administration's arguments that completing the ballroom is necessary for national security, noting that the government had not sufficiently explained how the injunction interferes with existing safety and security plans.
The court also highlighted that the administration had previously indicated that below-ground security upgrades were distinct from the ballroom construction, leading to questions about why the ballroom is essential for these upgrades. Additionally, the court pointed out that planning documents estimated the ballroom's completion would take nearly three years, making it unclear how a delay would impose additional harm beyond the expected risks of a lengthy construction project.
The case has been remanded to the lower court for further clarification on unresolved factual questions and the scope of the national-security exception. In her dissent, Judge Rao argued that halting construction poses credible security concerns that outweigh the generalized aesthetic harms presented in the lawsuit.
The construction of the 90,000-square-foot ballroom has been contentious since it began last October, involving the demolition of the White House's East Wing, which had stood since 1902. Critics argue that the project proceeded without proper authorization and consultation, leading to legal challenges from preservationist groups.