The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to continue construction of a $400 million White House ballroom, following an appeals court ruling that the project lacked necessary congressional approval. The Justice Department filed a request on Friday asking the justices to keep the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on hold while the administration prepares a full appeal.
Justice Department lawyers argued in their filing that the ballroom project is a national security necessity, citing assassination attempts against President Trump and describing the project as "vitally required by national security." They stated that an "extraordinary and unlawful injunction" will halt the construction of the "integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House."
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision on August 7, upheld a lower court judge’s order to halt above-ground construction. The panel stated, "Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help." The appeals court had paused its order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to challenge it at the Supreme Court.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation initiated the lawsuit last year after the administration demolished the East Wing and began constructing the 90,000-square-foot ballroom without seeking authorization from Congress. The appeals court's order does not permanently bar the construction of a ballroom but blocks above-ground work until congressional approval is secured.
President Trump has previously stated that the ballroom project is a security necessity, referring to the structure as a "military center." He called the D.C. Circuit’s decision "horrendous" and politically motivated, asserting it left him, other White House officials, and visitors exposed to attack. Trump has also said the ballroom plan includes bomb shelters, medical facilities, and other security features designed to protect against drone and missile attacks.
The appeals court's ruling acknowledged that national security arguments do not provide an automatic exemption from legal requirements, stating they "are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card."