USA05 June, 20262 min read
DOJ Lawyer Yaakov Roth Tells D.C. Circuit Judges Only Congress Can Stop Trump Ballroom Project
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
DOJ argued DC Circuit only Congress can stop the White House ballroom project. Construction was already underway, limiting potential judicial intervention.
Ballroom, courts, and DOJ
A federal appeals court hearing on Friday centered on whether judges can stop President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project without congressional approval, even after construction has already advanced.
DOJ lawyer Yaakov Roth told the three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that only Congress could halt the $400 million project, and he argued it would have been improper to enjoin the work even on day one.
Roth also said the dispute involves a question of standing once government steps have already been taken, and the hearing focused on whether that standing overrides national security.
Judge Patricia Millett pressed Roth with a “fait accompli” question about when the ballroom and its underground work became impossible for courts to stop.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to challenge the project in December, after the White House finished demolishing the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that Trump said would fit 999 people.
Statue of Liberty hypothetical
During the hearing, Millett asked Roth whether “the Supreme Court” and “no court” could stop the building of the ballroom, and Roth answered “Yes.”
Millett then raised a hypothetical involving the Statue of Liberty, asking whether people whose ancestors saw the landmark could sue if the government moved “very quickly” to bulldoze it.
Roth agreed with Millett’s framing that “nothing can be done” in that scenario, and the exchange drew audible gasps in the courtroom.
The National Trust’s attorney Tad Heuer argued that the government’s position conflicts with “Marbury v. Madison,” saying it is “the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Heuer said “That’s exactly the court’s job,” as the panel grappled with whether the executive branch can proceed once demolition and construction are underway.
What’s at stake next
The appeals court’s deliberations follow a lower-court order from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon for Trump’s Republican administration to halt aboveground work on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom, while allowing belowground work on a bunker and other “national security facilities.”
The Guardian reported that the Trump administration asked the Washington DC circuit court of appeals to reverse Leon’s decision that blocked construction of a $400m ballroom, while construction of a secure bunker underground was allowed to proceed.
The dispute also hinges on whether the National Park Service and the executive branch can proceed under the National Park Service’s Organic Act, which DOJ argued authorizes the agency to “promote and regulate” the national park system.
In the hearing, Millett challenged Roth’s argument that courts cannot correct alleged harm after the East Wing has already been demolished, and she rebuked what she called the administration’s “move fast and break things” approach.
The case tests the limits of presidential authority over federal property, with the National Trust arguing the executive branch exceeded its authority when it demolished the East Wing and moved forward with the ballroom project.