A Department of Justice lawyer has argued that no court possesses the authority to halt construction of Donald Trump's proposed White House ballroom and an accompanying secure underground facility, suggesting that only the US Congress has the power to stop the project.
Appeals Court Hearing
The Trump administration has petitioned the Washington DC circuit court of appeals to reverse a lower court decision that blocked the construction of a $400 million ballroom on the site of the White House's demolished East Wing. While the legal dispute between Washington DC preservationists and the administration continues, construction of a secure bunker for staff underground has been permitted to proceed.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit against the National Park Service and the administration in October, following Trump's order to demolish the East Wing. Construction began without completing—or even properly initiating—the typically lengthy review and approval process required by district and federal statutes.
National Security Justifications
The administration has cited national security imperatives for the construction, a point Trump has repeatedly emphasized. He has referenced the failed assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Association event in April as an example of the security threat that the ballroom and bunker complex is meant to address.
Congress, however, appears unpersuaded. The US Senate voted to advance a long-delayed immigration spending bill early on Friday morning only after Republicans removed $1 billion in funding for US Secret Service security upgrades to the proposed ballroom.
Legal Arguments
The case before the appellate court tests the limits of presidential authority. During a hearing on Friday morning, Justice Patricia Millet posed a hypothetical to Yaakov Roth, principal deputy assistant attorney general, asking when the construction of the ballroom and bunker complex became a fait accompli. She inquired whether it was at the time of demolition, the start of underground work, or when the project became inseparable from the ballroom above, and whether courts could still stop it.
Roth responded that if the project amounted to "complete lawlessness by the government," the courts might still be unable to stop it. He argued that Congress could pass a law to authorize or block the specific action, which a court would have to respect. "If Congress has weighed the equities in this particular instance, and reached a conclusion, I'm not sure a court would have the authority to second-guess that," Roth stated.
Thad Heuer, representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation, expressed shock at the argument. He cited the landmark case Marbury v Madison, asserting that "it is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is." Heuer argued that the government's position that even lawless actions could not be stopped by the court is entirely wrong, emphasizing that the court's job is to determine who controls federal property—Congress as its owner or the president as its temporary tenant.
