Court Debates Authority Over White House Ballroom Construction

Government lawyers argued on Friday that halting the construction of a White House ballroom is beyond the court’s power since work on the project has commenced. Concerns cited include security issues the structure aims to address. Attorney Yaakov Roth, interacting with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett, insisted that only Congress possesses the authority to cease the project, valued at $400 million. The administration urged the court to let construction continue without needing congressional approval.

The focal point of the argument is a directive from April 16 by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, part of Trump’s administration, to stop aboveground work on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom. Notably, construction on the subterranean bunker and other national security features was allowed. The discussion on Friday revolved around legal standing to challenge completed government actions and whether that standing overrides national security issues.

In response to hypothetical situations proposed by Millett, Roth acknowledged that post-fact opposition to government actions, such as demolishing the Statue of Liberty or the White House, would not hold legal standing.

Judge Millett, appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, questioned Roth on the project’s point of no return: “Was it when the underground work started, and became integral to the ballroom above? When does judicial interference become impossible?” Roth asserted that judicial intervention even at the onset would have been improper.

The exchange occurred amidst a two-hour session before a U.S. Court of Appeals panel in the District of Columbia Circuit, concluding without a ruling. The National Trust for Historic Preservation had filed a lawsuit over the project in December after the East Wing’s demolition for the ballroom, meant to accommodate 999 people.

Predicting the judges’ ruling remains challenging. Though Roth faced multiple inquiries regarding the administration’s authority and project rationale, plaintiff attorney Tad Heuer equally encountered scrutiny. The judges questioned Heuer on standing and aesthetic concerns’ precedence over national security.

Heuer clarified, “We do not oppose the underground bunker, previously justified for security. Construction should be paused until Congress decides.” He added, “It’s Congress that authorizes ballroom construction, as it’s their property.”

Government representatives argued critical security upgrades are part of the project, guarding against threats like drones and missiles. They said, “These improvements are vital for protecting the President and others in the White House, with the entire project grounded in these security functions.”