Court lets White House continue construction on Trump's $400 million ballroom
Law Journals
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
-
Influencer pleads guilty to criminal impersonation for viral pranks
Law Journals 08/30/2026A social media influencer known for posting viral videos of pranks has pleaded guilty to criminal impersonation in Arizona for posing as an employee of businesses in a Phoenix suburb and orchestrating brief but chaotic takeover attempts.The outcome w...
-
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting restrictions
Law Journals 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...
-
Judge refuses to block Trump administration from building border wall
Law Journals 08/15/2026A federal judge refused on Friday to block the Trump administration from taking steps to build 62 miles of international border wall along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation without its consent.U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Was...
Texas Adopts Statewide Texting-While-Driving Ban
Effective September 1, 2017, Texas will become the 47th state to pass a statewide ban on texting while driving. Governor Abbott’s signing of House Bill 62 is an effort to unify Texas under a uniform ban and remedy the “patchwork quilt of regulations that dictate driving practices in Texas.”
The bill specifically prohibits drivers from reading, writing, or sending an electronic message on a device unless the vehicle is stopped. That includes texting and emailing. It does not, however, prohibit dialing a number to call someone, talking on the phone using a hands-free device, or using the phone’s GPS system.
Violations would be punishable by a fine ranging from $25 to $99, to be set by each municipality. Although penalties could rise to as much as $200 for repeat offenders.
Studies have found that a driver’s reaction time is half as much when a driver is distracted by sending or reading a text message. According to state officials, in 2015 more than 105,000 traffic accidents in Texas involved distracted driving, leading to at least 476 fatalities.
