Appeals Court Upholds Block on White House Ballroom Construction, Trump Vows Supreme Court Appeal
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 D.C. Circuit panel affirmed a district judge's injunction halting the White House ballroom project while permitting underground work, and President Trump announced an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday affirmed a preliminary injunction that stops construction of a proposed White House ballroom, but it allowed below-ground work, including bunkers and medical facilities, to continue. The court stayed its own ruling for 14 days to give the administration time to seek review by the Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump responded on his social-media platform, saying he would "immediately" appeal the decision. He described the ballroom project as essential for national security and claimed the ruling threatened the safety of current and future presidents, staff, and visitors.
Brent Leggs, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, praised the decision, stating that the White House belongs to the American people as a global landmark.
The majority opinion held that the authority to approve major alterations to the White House rests with Congress, not the executive, and that the President lacks constitutional power to unilaterally direct such changes. The court noted that the administration proceeded with demolition and construction without the required congressional consultation.
Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia wrote that the ruling does not preclude eventual construction of the ballroom, but it cannot proceed without congressional authorization. Judge Neomi Rao, the panel’s dissenting member, argued that the lower court overstepped by restricting the President’s ability to manage the Executive Residence.
The appeals court also observed that the administration’s own actions created the security concerns it now cites, and that invoking national-security arguments does not automatically exempt the project from legal requirements.