Photo: Alamy
A federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily allowed construction of a proposed White House ballroom backed by President Donald Trump to continue, pausing a lower court order that had halted the project over concerns about presidential authority.
The 2-1 ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit permits work to proceed through April 17 while the court reviews the case. A lower court had ordered construction to stop on April 14.
In its decision, the appeals court said it could not “fairly determine, on this hurried record,” how arguments related to security and executive authority might affect the outcome, and sent the case back to the lower court for further clarification.
The dispute centers on whether the president has the authority to move forward with the estimated $400 million project without congressional approval. Richard Leon previously ruled in favor of a preservation group, finding that the administration likely exceeded its authority in planning the expansion, which includes demolition and reconstruction of parts of the East Wing.
President Trump’s legal team has argued the ballroom is necessary for “the safety and security” of the president, his family and staff, and that decisions about White House facilities fall under executive authority. Court filings also state that the project is privately funded and does not rely on taxpayer dollars.
“No taxpayer dollars are being used for the funding of this beautiful, desperately needed, and completely secure (for national security purposes) ballroom,” the administration said in filings.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is challenging the project, argued that congressional approval is required for major construction on federal property and dismissed the administration’s national security claims.
The organization added that the White House has functioned without such a facility for decades and that the project’s timeline undercuts claims of urgency. The case now returns to the lower court for further review as legal questions over executive authority and historic preservation remain unresolved.