{"id":894396,"date":"2026-04-14T22:53:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:53:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/894396\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T22:53:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:53:22","slug":"us-appellate-court-temporarily-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-jurist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/894396\/","title":{"rendered":"US appellate court temporarily allows White House ballroom construction to continue – JURIST"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Saturday extended<\/a> a lower court\u2019s freeze on a partial preliminary injunction that had halted construction of the White House\u2019s proposed ballroom, allowing the project to continue until April 17.<\/p>\n

The court determined \u201cserious factual questions\u201d existed about the relationship between proposed underground facility construction plans and proposed above-ground plans and whether halting the projects would create \u201csafety and security\u201d risks for the president and White House personnel.<\/p>\n

In December 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (NTHP) sued<\/a> the White House for its proposed, donor-funded renovation project. The project involves plans to erect a 90,000 square foot ballroom on the site of the former East Wing. Two months prior to the suit, President Donald Trump announced that \u201cground had been broken,\u201d and the East Wing was demolished<\/a> shortly after. The group argued that the project lacked proper review, and the president lacked statutory authorization to unilaterally commence the project, claiming the demolition infringed on Congress\u2019 authority.<\/p>\n

In late March, a federal district court enjoined<\/a> ballroom construction, holding that the president likely operated without statutory authority and infringed on congressional power. However, the injunction only extended to ballroom construction and did not halt \u201cactions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.\u201d<\/p>\n

White House officials have claimed that security concerns mostly arise from underground construction at the site, which include \u201cbomb shelters, a hospital and medical area, protective partitioning, and Top Secret Military installations.\u201d Security risks led the district court to grant the White House a stay on the injunction until April 14.<\/p>\n

According to the appellate court, White House officials had originally said underground construction and ballroom construction were independent projects, and underground-facility progress would not affect ballroom construction. However, officials now claim that the \u201cnational security upgrades are inseparable from the rest of the Project.\u201d Officials also argued that unfinished construction presents inherent national security risks, though the court pointed out the project\u2019s anticipated a three-year timeline and how a temporary pause minimally changes risks of long-term construction.<\/p>\n

The appellate court remanded the case to resolve the discrepancies and extended the lower court\u2019s stay until April 17.<\/p>\n

Dissenting Judge Neomi Rao argued that the NTHP lacked standing to sue the White House and that the president had statutory authorization under 3 U.S.C. \u00a7 105(d)(1)<\/a>, which allocates money to the president necessary for \u201cthe care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement\u2026of the Executive Residence at the White House.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The suit coincides with other controversial renovation projects President Trump has proposed for historic Washington DC buildings. Last month, the NTHP sued<\/a> the administration for its plans to overhaul the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Saturday extended a lower court\u2019s freeze…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":894397,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5311],"tags":[49,978,659],"class_list":{"0":"post-894396","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"tag-united-states","9":"tag-us","10":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116405521992888985","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=894396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894396\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/894397"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}