WASHINGTON — Advocates for historic preservation are moving forward with their legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s proposed $400 million White House ballroom. This decision comes despite the Department of Justice’s request to drop the case after a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.

In the aftermath of the shooting, Trump and some conservative voices have intensified their call for the ballroom, claiming that secure venues are crucial for presidential safety during large gatherings off the White House property. They have appealed to the National Trust for Historic Preservation to abandon the lawsuit.

Senior officials at the Justice Department have indicated that they might seek a court dismissal of the lawsuit, citing the “extraordinary events” of the previous night, should the Trust refuse to withdraw voluntarily.

However, Gregory Craig, the attorney representing the Trust, rejected this request. In a letter to the Justice Department, he emphasized that the core legal issues remain unaffected by recent events.

“The tragic incident on Saturday does not alter the fact that the Constitution and various federal laws demand Congressional approval for constructing a ballroom on White House grounds, which has not been granted,” Craig stated.

The Justice Department has not yet responded to inquiries about their stance on 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.