The D.C. Circuit heard argument on a challenge to Trump's $400 million White House ballroom, with DOJ claiming no court could stop the project or any presidential demolition order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument June 6 in a challenge to the Trump administration's plan to construct a $400 million ballroom on the site of the demolished White House East Wing [1]. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth advanced a sweeping position: no court, including the Supreme Court, possesses the authority to halt the project [1]. Roth argued that even a hypothetical presidential order to demolish the Statue of Liberty would be beyond judicial review, a claim that drew immediate attention from the three-judge panel [1].
The case is National Trust for Historic Preservation v. United States, brought by preservationists contesting the construction's legality [2]. The appeal arises from a lower court decision and sits before a panel composed of Judges Patricia Millett, Bradley Garcia, and Neomi Rao [1]. The argument covered two distinct fronts: whether the National Trust has standing to sue, and whether the executive branch acted within its authority by proceeding without a congressional appropriation [1]. The panel appeared divided on both questions during argument [1].
The substantive stakes are considerable on multiple axes. The administration's no-review theory, if accepted, would insulate unilateral executive action over federal property from any judicial check, regardless of congressional intent on spending [2]. The standing question carries its own significance: the government's strategy of accelerating construction to render the case moot before a ruling proceeds tracks a pattern courts have begun examining closely, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting nationwide injunctions [2]. Critics of that approach argue it creates a perverse incentive, allowing the executive to outpace judicial oversight by moving fast enough to foreclose any remedy [2].
A ruling from the panel is expected within weeks [1]. Legal observers note the case carries a credible path to the Supreme Court given the constitutional dimensions of the standing and appropriations questions [2]. Should the D.C. Circuit rule against the government on either ground, the administration would likely seek emergency relief while simultaneously pressing the broader argument that judicial review of presidential property decisions is categorically unavailable [2].