US appeals court upholds injunction pausing Trump’s White House ballroom
The two-judge majority underscored that the president needed congressional authority to move forwards with his plans. In a sharply worded opinion, the United States Appeals
The two-judge majority underscored that the president needed congressional authority to move forwards with his plans. In a sharply worded opinion, the United States Appeals Court for the District of Columbia has upheld an injunction against the construction of President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom, citing the need for congressional approval. The appeals court voted on Friday by a margin of two to one, with judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia forming a majority. The third judge on the panel, Neomi Rao, dissented. The lengthy opinion began with a reflection on the White House’s role as the “people’s house”. Congress, the judges explained, wields control over the building and its surrounding property, and the president is only a temporary tenant. “The President has no — and claims no — constitutionally assigned authority over that property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all Presidents, current and future, and for the American people,” Garcia and Millett wrote. They then proceeded to describe the series of events that led to October’s abrupt demolition of the century-old East Wing of the White House, flattened to make way for Trump’s long sought-after ballroom. “We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President, unilaterally and using privately collected funds, demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now,” they wrote. Allowing the ballroom construction to proceed will cause “permanent and irreversible harm” to the “historic, architectural, and aesthetic interests” represented by the plaintiffs, according to the ruling. Millett and Garcia — who were appointed by Democratic presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively — therefore upheld a lower court decision to pause construction while litigation proceeds.
“The Defendants have not shown that Congress delegated that authority to either the President or the Park Service,” the judges wrote. “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.” Their injunction, however, came with a 14-day stay on its implementation, to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump quickly fired back that the Supreme Court was precisely where he planned to take the case. “We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote at one point in his lengthy, 487-word post. “The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents.” Trump has repeatedly argued that the ballroom is necessary for national security purposes, creating a space for presidents to securely hold events. Critics, however, have denounced the ballroom as an unnecessary and destructive vanity project undertaken without following the correct legal protocol. The idea for a new ballroom stretches back to 2011, when Trump, then known primarily as a real estate magnate, told ABC News of his ambitions to build an opulent White House ballroom to host state dinners. He had emerged at the time as a critic of then-President Obama, and he renewed his pitch to build a White House ballroom during his first successful presidential bid in 2016. But the idea languished during Trump’s first term. However, after being sworn in for a second term in 2025, Trump quickly resumed his push for a ballroom, along with other projects designed to reshape the Washington, DC, landscape.
The BriefWire