Trump could also tear down the Statue of Liberty, DOJ argues in defense of White House ballroom
A federal appeals court panel on Friday expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s view that courts are powerless to stop construction of the White House ballroom because the East Wing has been demolished.
Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit repeatedly pressed administration lawyers on their argument that President Donald Trump’s pet project, now well underway, cannot be stopped by the courts even if it is found to be illegal because it goes too far and involves significant national security interests.
“When did this become a fait accompli?” Judge Patricia Millett asked. “If this was complete lawlessness on the part of the government…couldn’t it have been stopped?”
“I think that’s true, based on those theories,” Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth replied.
Millett, an Obama appointee, questioned Roth about the scope of his view of the Trump administration’s power to “move quickly and disrupt things” without facing legal challenges.
“If the government decides too quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty — the first thing their ancestors saw coming to this country, but the government moved too quickly — can nothing be done?” the judge asked.
“I think that’s true, yes,” Roth responded.
A federal judge in March Ballroom construction was stopped During the legal battle, however, the D.C. Circuit quickly put the ruling on pause, allowing construction to continue while the case continued.
Friday’s exchange underscored the Trump administration’s all-out effort to defend the massive reconstruction project, which Trump has made clear is a personal priority, and other aesthetic and architectural ambitions he has across Washington. Judge Bradley Garcia, appointed by Biden, also agreed with Millett’s skeptical attitude.
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the plaintiff in the case, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had a basis to sue in the first place, particularly against Trump’s claim that the ballroom would serve as a critical national firewall as well as an event space.
Roth told the panel that the Foundation’s “aesthetic” concerns about the White House should take a backseat to the security issues at stake.
“The balance of harms and public interest is very unbalanced in favor of this project,” Roth said. “This is, on the one hand, architectural choice, and on the other hand, the safety and security of the president of the United States.”
Roth also argued that it would be overkill for the courts to take any action to stop the ballroom project at the beginning or now, even if it is clearly illegal under federal law. Instead, he said, if a court finds the project illegal, the only solution would lie with Congress.
“Given the fact that we have national security imperatives, Congress can figure out how to deal with this,” Roth said. “It’s going well. They’ve placed about 3 million pounds of steel rebar. … Congress would be the appropriate body to decide: How do we balance these considerations at this point?”
The National Trust’s lawsuit argues that the White House grounds, a designated national park, cannot be updated without congressional approval. They argue that the park, like Yellowstone, cannot be redesigned at the whims of management.
“They don’t want to go to Congress,” said Tad Heuer, the foundation’s attorney, emphasizing that under the Constitution, “Congress controls federal property.”
Heuer said more modest changes to the White House, such as the installation of tennis courts and a pool, may have been made without permission, but they were never challenged in court. But the ballroom, which required the demolition of the entire East Wing of the White House, is on a different scale.
Trump has repeatedly mocked the lawsuit filed against the project. He claims this in a post on social media: “It was brought by a woman walking her dog who had absolutely no means to bring such a suit.” In fact, the National Trust claimed its survival through historian and emeritus professor Alison Hoagland, who volunteers on various conservation boards and visits the site regularly.
Hoagland’s court statement It says nothing about a dog.
