Weather 
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday continued to allow construction of the new White House ballroom, clearing the way for the massive new structure that President Trump has championed.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court halted lower court rulings that would have temporarily blocked the construction of a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the East Wing once stood.
The high court said in an unsigned opinion that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which filed a lawsuit to block the project, likely did not have the legal right to sue. It did not address the legality of Mr. Trump’s East Wing project.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the three liberal justices in dissent.
Roberts had temporarily allowed work on the ballroom to continue earlier this month, giving the Supreme Court more time to weigh the Trump administration’s bid for emergency relief.
In its unsigned opinion, the court ruled that lower court judges “likely exceeded” their authority by blocking the ballroom. The majority pointed to sworn declarations from top administration officials, including the director of National Intelligence and heads of the Secret Service, Army and the State Department, who said the ballroom was necessary and had warned that any significant pause in construction would harm the government because of the national security facilities being built underground.
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project,” the court said. “We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.”
But Roberts, writing in dissent, said that construction of the ballroom is “likely unlawful.” Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the chief justice said that Congress has not authorized the East Wing project.
Roberts also said the injuries asserted by Alison Hoagland, one of the Trust’s members, are sufficient to allow the lawsuit to go forward.
“The White House is not just any building, and — when it comes to historic preservation — Hoagland is not just any person,” he wrote. “In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue. Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers.”
Mr. Trump praised the ballroom project in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.
“We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.,” he wrote on Truth Social. “When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of.”
Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said it is “deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling today and respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion on standing. It is noteworthy that the majority did not weigh in on whether the ballroom project was in fact legal.”
“We are pleased with Chief Justice Robert’s strong dissent, which reiterated what we have maintained from the start of our case — that construction of the White House ballroom is unlawful,” Leggs said in a statement. “In addition, 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.”
The Trump administration requested emergency relief from the court earlier this month after a federal appeals court ruled the White House lacked authority to build the $400 million project without congressional approval.
The divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that Congress — not Mr. Trump or the White House — has “full constitutional control over federal property and the funding of its maintenance and development,” and noted an “absence of any express or implied authorization” that grants Mr. Trump the ability to construct the ballroom.
In a filing with the court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to pause the lower court ruling that blocked above-ground construction while the legal battle over the project plays out. The overhaul also includes an underground bunker, medical facilities and other features, and judges have allowed that work to continue.
“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” Sauer wrote.
Sauer wrote that the renovations are “absolutely required and should not be enjoined” because any delay threatens Mr. Trump’s safety after recent domestic and international assassination plots against him.
Construction on the project is 65% done, Sauer wrote in the filing, because the initial district court order halting the construction has never gone into effect. He revealed that a 250-person crew is working “20 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
Described as a “superstructure” made of concrete and steel, Sauer told the high court that it rises up to 70 feet high in some places, stretches five stories deep and has a footprint of nearly 50,000 square feet. The ballroom is funded by private donations, and $335 million of an expected $400 million has been raised, Joshua Fisher, director for White House Management and Administration, said in a declaration.
“Given the current progress, the superstructure is beyond the point of return,” he said.
The White House anticipates the structure will be “substantially” completed by November, and the full project is expected to be wrapped by August 2028, when Mr. Trump will have just five months left in his term.
In April, the appellate panel granted an administrative stay sought by the Justice Department that allowed all White House ballroom construction to continue while the court considered briefs and heard arguments. Below-ground work on the presidential bunker and other security upgrades has continued as well during the legal back-and-forth. The D.C. Circuit then upheld the district court’s injunction.
Attorneys for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which filed suit to block the ballroom project late last year, argued in their response to the Trump administration that the organization would be irreparably harmed if the ballroom construction is permitted and accused the White House of attempting to “outrun judicial review.”
“In the end, the question is not ‘whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy.’ Nor is it even whether Petitioners may ultimately construct the ballroom,” they wrote in a filing. “The question is simply who decides whether a ballroom can be built on federal property. Our constitutional system and federal law commits that choice to Congress.”
Lawyers for the Trust accused the White House of shifting positions regarding the nature of the project, including its stance that the ballroom was necessary for national security, when previously it said the ballroom could be built independent of the below-ground facilities. They reiterated that the lower court orders allow work on the subterranean bunker to continue.
Mr. Trump has been deeply involved in the project, frequently raising the ballroom during public events and in posts on Truth Social. In a social media post Friday, the president called the Trust “treasonists” and accused them of revealing “top military secrets.”
Portions of some legal filings submitted by the Justice Department to lower courts have been written in the style of the president’s social media postings, including with misplaced capital letters and exclamation points, raising questions as to whether Mr. Trump himself participated in the brief-writing process.
