WASHINGTON – In a high-stakes legal battle, federal attorneys argued on Friday that the judiciary lacks the authority to halt the ongoing construction of a White House ballroom, a project they claim is crucial for security reasons. The government’s legal team contends that only Congress has the power to intervene in the $400 million endeavor, which the administration seeks to continue without explicit congressional consent.
During an exchange in court with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett, government attorney Yaakov Roth emphasized the urgency and sensitivity of the project. He maintained that legislative intervention would be necessary to stop the development, which is already in progress.
The controversy centers around an April 16 directive from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who ordered an immediate stop to the aboveground construction of the massive 90,000-square-foot ballroom. However, Judge Leon, a Bush appointee, permitted the continuation of subterranean work on a bunker and other facilities deemed vital for national security.
Friday’s hearing delved into complex legal questions about who has the right to contest government actions once they have been initiated, and how this right interacts with issues of national security.
The debate took an intriguing turn when Judge Millett, appointed by President Obama, posed hypothetical scenarios to Roth. In a provocative exchange, Roth conceded that even if the government were to demolish iconic landmarks like the Statue of Liberty or the White House, those with historical connections to these sites might lack the legal standing to challenge such actions post-factum.
Judge Millett pressed Roth further, seeking clarity on when the construction might be considered a “fait accompli,” effectively questioning at what point legal challenges become futile.
“Was it when you started doing the underground work, which is now totally completely integral and connected and inseparable from a massive ballroom on top?” she asked. “When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?”
Roth replied: “I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on Day One.”
The exchange was one of many during the two-hour hearing before the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The hearing concluded without a decision by the judges.
The hearing concluded without a decision by the judges.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to challenge the project in December, a week after the White House finished demolishing the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that Trump said would fit 999 people.
It is hard to determine how the judges might rule. While there were numerous questions for Roth over the administration’s authority and changing explanations of how it is moving forward, plaintiff attorney Tad Heuer also faced numerous questions.
The judges pressed Heuer on standing in the case and on how basic aesthetic questions can override the national security concerns.
“We have never opposed the underground construction of the bunker, which is where the government until recently has said the national security concerns lay,” Heuer said. He said construction should be halted until Congress weighs in.
“Congress can allow ballrooms to be built — it’s its property,” Heuer said.
Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones, ballistic missiles and biohazards.
“These upgrades, alterations, and improvements are essential to protecting the President, his family, and his staff, as well as the White House itself, and the entire project flows from them,” they wrote in a court filing.
