Court lets White House continue construction on Trump's $400 million ballroom
U.S. Law Review
A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the White House to continue construction on a $400 million ballroom project as lawsuits play out, a win for President Donald Trump as he flexes unprecedented executive power and remakes the capital in his image.
The apparent 5-4 decision replaces a temporary order issued earlier this month, shortly before a court-ordered halt would have gone into effect.
That temporary order was signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, assigned to handle appeals from the capital. But he publicly disagreed with the latest decision, writing a strong dissent that said the project is likely unlawful because it hasn't been approved by Congress.
“Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote. The court's three liberal-leaning justices agreed.
The majority, on the other hand, found the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely did not have the legal right to challenge the project.
The unsigned order pointed to government arguments that the ballroom would address national security concerns by shielding a planned underground military installation and offering a more secure structure for large events than the tents currently used.
By contrast, “the only harm the Trust claims is the offense one of its members will suffer from having to view a structure of the ‘scale,’ ‘height,’ and ‘massing’ the government intends,” it states.
Trump applauded the decision, writing in a social media post, “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat.”
The majority's order did not directly decide the legality of the project, and the suit will return to lower courts. Documents filed in the case, though, say that key portions of the project could be complete within months — a quick timeline compared with a typical legal case.
The trust's president and CEO, Brent Leggs, said the group was disappointed with the decision but pleased with Roberts' dissent. “This is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument — that each President is a temporary steward of the People's House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress,” he said in a statement.
The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene after federal courts found the project must halt because it didn't have congressional approval.
The lawsuit from the trust argued that Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing. The group's lawyers accused the White House of trying to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction.
In lower courts, the administration has argued that the president has total authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting restrictions
U.S. Law Review 08/25/2026The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.The decisi...
-
Trump administration reaches a trade deal to lower Taiwan’s tariff barriers
U.S. Law Review 02/13/2026The Trump administration reached a trade deal with Taiwan on Thursday, with Taiwan agreeing to remove or reduce 99% of its tariff barriers, the office of the U.S. Trade Representative said.The agreement comes as the U.S. remains reliant on Taiwan for...
-
Amazon cuts about 16,000 corporate jobs in the latest round of layoffs
U.S. Law Review 01/28/2026Amazon is slashing about 16,000 corporate jobs in the second round of mass layoffs for the ecommerce company in three months.The tech giant has said it plans to use generative artificial intelligence to replace corporate workers. It has also been red...
Experienced Business Law Attorneys - Business Law Attorneys in Chicago, Illinois
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it is clarifying policy guidance (PDF, 71 KB) on the specific work activities its officers should consider when determining whether an individual qualifies for TN nonimmigrant status as an economist.
Companies of all sizes have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork just to do business. Long gone are the days of simply designing and manufacturing a great product and putting it out there. It can be incredibly overwhelming trying to do business without making yourself vulnerable to a lawsuit.
If you need to craft an agreement between you and investors or business partners, it is prudent to have it reviewed by a business attorney before you sign anything. You may also want to have your vendor contracts, office leases, sales agreements, and other types of agreements looked over as well. From start-ups to established corporations, the Chicago business attorneys at the Roth Law Group have the know-how to help businesses keep legal trouble at bay.
The attorneys at the Roth Law Group have helped their clients at every stage of the business creation and operation process. From registering as a legally-recognized business entity to hiring employees and then copywriting or trademarking a product idea, the right guidance in the beginning can keep you out of trouble later on.
