A federal appeals court on Friday examined the Trump administration’s claim that President Donald Trump can proceed with construction of a new White House ballroom without congressional approval, as Justice Department lawyers argued that courts lack the power to stop the project once it is underway.
Get today's headlines by email 
During a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth said judges could not block the project, even as construction advances. He noted that more than 3 million pounds of steel reinforcing bar had already been delivered to the site and said the project was “well on its way.”
Judge Patricia Millett repeatedly challenged that position, asking whether any court could prevent the ballroom from being built. Roth replied that it could not.
Statue of Liberty Hypothetical Draws Attention
The hearing took a dramatic turn when Millett posed a hypothetical scenario involving the destruction of the Statue of Liberty.
She asked whether the administration’s legal argument would also mean that no lawsuit could stop the government from quickly bulldozing the monument if construction moved fast enough. Roth agreed, saying that once an alleged injury becomes impossible for a court to remedy, it is no longer legally redressable.
The exchange prompted audible reactions in the courtroom.
Millett criticized what she described as a “move fast and break things” approach, questioning whether rapid action by the government could effectively prevent legal challenges from succeeding.
Preservation Group's Right to Sue Under Scrutiny
The case was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that it has standing to challenge the ballroom project because of its mission to protect historic sites and because some of its members would be harmed by alterations to the White House complex.
Roth contended that the organization lacks standing because the original East Wing has already been demolished and courts can no longer provide meaningful relief.
The judges appeared divided on the issue. While Millett expressed skepticism toward the administration’s arguments, Judge Neomi Rao raised questions suggesting concerns about whether the preservation group has the legal right to bring the lawsuit.
Millett also questioned the administration’s dismissal of claims by National Trust board member Alison Hoagland, who argues that the project would alter the historic character of the White House grounds.
Authority and Security Concerns Debated
Several judges also questioned whether federal laws cited by the administration provide sufficient authority for the project.
Judge Bradley Garcia noted that one statute appears to authorize maintenance and upkeep of the White House but does not explicitly permit major construction projects involving demolition and replacement of existing structures.
Rao likewise questioned whether the Office of the Executive Residence has the authority to oversee construction work on behalf of the National Park Service.
The Justice Department defended the project by arguing that it serves critical security purposes. Roth said the former East Wing lacked the protections needed to address modern threats, including drone attacks, and that the redevelopment is intended to provide a secure location for the president and senior government officials during emergencies.
Construction Continues During Appeal
The Trump administration is seeking to overturn a March ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who found that Trump exceeded his authority in pursuing the ballroom project and ordered construction halted.
That order was temporarily suspended by the appeals court in April, allowing work on the project to continue while the legal challenge proceeds.
The appellate panel has not yet issued a decision on whether the lawsuit can move forward or whether construction should ultimately be allowed to continue.
Join the discussion? 
Already a member? 
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 6 June 2026
-
1
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment