Roth Argues Trump White House Ballroom Lawsuit Cannot Halt $400 Million Project
In the trump white house ballroom lawsuit, a Department of Justice lawyer told a federal appeals court on Friday morning that no court has authority to stop construction of Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom and underground facility. The administration is asking the Washington DC circuit court of appeals to reverse a lower court order that blocked the project.
Friday Morning Hearing
Yaakov Roth, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, made the argument for the administration and said Congress could authorize or block the specific action. He told the panel, "On these theories, I think that’s right," and added, "If Congress has weighed the equities in this particular instance, and reached a conclusion, I’m not sure a court would have the authority to second-guess that, but if we’re just talking about a general statute and application. I think a court would not second-guess a congressional decision that addressed the equities in that way."
Justice Patricia Millet pressed Roth on when the work became too far along for a court to stop it. She asked, "Was it when the destruction happened? Was it when you started doing the underground work, which we’re now told is completely integral and connected and inseparable from a massive ballroom on top? When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?"
National Trust Lawsuit
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued the National Park Service and the administration in October after Trump ordered the East Wing’s demolition. The challenge said construction began without completing the review and approvals required by district and federal statute. The ballroom is planned for the site of the demolished East Wing, and the broader project also includes a secure underground bunker for staff.
That underground work was allowed to continue while the dispute moves forward. The case now asks whether the project can keep advancing under the administration’s national security rationale even as preservation and approval fights continue in court.
Congress And Federal Property
Thad Heuer, who represents the historic trust, answered that the government’s position would let even a lawless action avoid judicial review. He said, "Under Marbury v Madison, it is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," and followed with, "The government’s position, apparently, is that even a lawless action of this type could never be stopped by the court. That is entirely wrong. That’s exactly the court’s job. In this case, it’s about who controls federal property. Is it Congress, its owner, or is it the president, its temporary tenant?"
The hearing put that ownership question at the center of the dispute, with Roth saying Congress could decide the equities in a particular case and Heuer arguing that courts must still decide whether the law allows the project to proceed. Congress also removed $1 billion in funding for US Secret Service security upgrades to the proposed ballroom from a long-delayed immigration spending bill.
The appeals court will now weigh whether the lower court order stays in place while the project moves ahead, including the underground bunker already permitted to continue.
