Trust asks Supreme Court to keep White House ballroom halt

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Pocket
WhatsApp

Lawyers for the National Trust for Historic Preservation pressed the Supreme Court to maintain a lower court order blocking construction of the White House ballroom, arguing the government is attempting to finish the project before courts can fully review it.

In a Tuesday filing, attorney Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel, said the Trump administration is “trying to outrun judicial review” by accelerating work so the structure would soon be difficult to reverse. He warned that if the justices grant the government’s stay request, construction could proceed to completion even though, he wrote, every court to consider the matter so far has found the project unlawful.

White House ballroom plan and current status

The order by Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., would pause above-ground construction while allowing underground work tied to security, such as bunkers, to continue. The ruling has not taken effect because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit temporarily stayed it while considering the administration’s appeal.

Construction has continued, and the administration told the courts Friday the project is 65% complete and advancing quickly.

The White House announced on July 31, 2025, plans to demolish the East Wing and build a 90,000-square-foot event space, saying presidents and staff had long sought a larger venue on the complex. The statement said President Donald J. Trump aimed to address that need for future administrations and the public.

Appeals court ruling on White House ballroom

On Aug. 7, a divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel upheld Leon’s injunction but gave the government 14 days to seek Supreme Court intervention. Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia wrote that only Congress may regulate construction and demolition of White House structures and noted no funds had been approved for the ballroom.

They concluded that allowing the build to continue would permanently harm trust members through irreversible historical, architectural, and visual damage.

Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing the trust lacked standing to sue and that the president has authority to make improvements to his residence, potentially including the ballroom.

Administration’s national security argument

On Aug. 14, the administration asked the Supreme Court to put Leon’s order on hold, calling it extraordinary and unlawful. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the injunction would halt work on an integrated military complex at the East Wing that includes a fully secure ballroom space needed for national security.

The administration also contended the trust lacks standing, characterizing its claims as based on a member’s dislike of the design. It argued Congress has twice authorized the project, citing general authority for presidents to make alterations and improvements to the White House and broader authorization to construct buildings in national parks.

Trust says Congress must decide

In a 40-page response, the trust framed the dispute as a question of who decides whether a ballroom can be built on federal property. It said the Constitution and federal law assign that decision to Congress.

If the administration believes a ballroom is necessary, the group wrote, it can seek congressional approval instead of moving ahead without it.

The trust argued the administration would not be harmed if the injunction stands, noting the district court’s order permits continued work on underground facilities, site security, and safety measures. It said only the ballroom itself is halted absent prior congressional approval.

The trust warned it would face lasting harm if the stay is granted, pointing to the government’s rapid timeline that projects substantial completion by November 2026 and assertions that the project is beyond the point of return, leaving no practical way to remove or alter the structure.

To address concerns over delay, the trust said it would not oppose an expedited schedule that would allow the government to seek review on the merits promptly, with potential arguments in October or November.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Pocket
WhatsApp