Preservationists are forging ahead with their legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s proposed $400 million ballroom at the White House. They have opted not to heed a request from the Department of Justice, which urged them to retract their complaint following the recent incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

In the aftermath of the shooting at the media dinner, Trump and his conservative allies have intensified their push for the ballroom. They argue that the incident highlights the challenges of safeguarding the president during large events held outside the White House. Consequently, they have called on the National Trust for Historic Preservation to abandon its lawsuit.

Senior officials from the Justice Department indicated that they would seek a court’s dismissal of the lawsuit due to “the extraordinary events” of the previous night if the Trust did not withdraw it voluntarily.

However, Gregory Craig, the attorney representing the Trust, rejected this proposal. In his communication with the Justice Department, he stated that the lawsuit’s central legal issues remain unaffected by the recent events.

“The unfortunate event on Saturday does not alter the fact that the Constitution and several federal laws require Congressional approval for constructing a ballroom on White House premises, which has not been granted,” Craig asserted.

The Justice Department has yet to respond to requests for comments regarding this matter.

The preservation group sued 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. Trump says the project is funded by private donations, although public money is paying for a below-ground bunker and security upgrades.

In its lawsuit, the Trust argued that Trump had overstepped his authority by moving forward with the project without first getting approval from key federal agencies and Congress.

A federal appeals court has allowed Trump to continue the project, ruling a day after a lower court judge continued to block above-ground construction on the site and scheduling a June 5 hearing to review the case.