A federal judge must reconsider the potential national security impact of halting construction on President Donald Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom, an appeals court ruled Saturday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said there was not enough information to determine how much of the project could be halted without jeopardizing the safety of the president, his family and White House staff.
The case was sent back to the trial judge, who in a March 31 ruling prohibited construction from proceeding without council approval, but suspended enforcement of that order for 14 days. The appeals court extended that deadline by three days, to April 17, to allow the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court for review.
The panel directed U.S. District Judge Richard Leon to determine whether and how his injunction would interfere with the government’s safety and security plans.
Government lawyers argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a variety of possible threats, including drones, ballistic missiles and biohazards, and that delaying construction would “put the President and those who live and work in the White House at risk.”
In issuing the moratorium, Leon concluded that the preservationist groups behind the legal challenge were likely to succeed because the president lacked the authority to build banquet halls without Congressional approval.
Leung said he had exempted construction work necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House, but reviewed documents submitted privately by the government before determining that stopping it would not pose a threat to national security.
The Republican administration’s appeal cited materials that would be installed to create a “heavily fortified” facility and said construction would include an air raid shelter beneath the ballroom, as well as military and medical facilities.
The appeals panel noted that many of the government’s concerns focused on the underground security construction, which the White House argued was “separate from the construction of the banquet hall itself and can proceed independently.”
But the appeals court said the White House now appears to be indicating that these security enhancements are “integral” from the overall project, and it is unclear “whether and to what extent” proceeding with certain aspects of the banquet hall are “necessary” for the safety and security of those enhancements, the appeals court said.
Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said in a statement that the organization is awaiting further clarification from the district court. He said the group is committed to “respecting the historical significance of the White House, asserting our collective role as stewards, and demonstrating that broad consultation, including input from the American people, leads to better outcomes overall.”
The group filed the lawsuit in December, a week after the White House finished demolishing the east wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot (8,400-square-meter) ballroom that Trump said could seat 999 people. The administration said ground-level construction of the ballroom will begin in April.
Leon concluded last month that the case is likely to succeed because “there is no law comparable to giving the president the powers he claims he has.”
“The President of the United States is the custodian of the White House for future generations of the First Family. But he is not the owner!” wrote Mr. Leon, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush.
Two days after the Leon decision, the Ballroom project received final approval from key agencies that President Trump had prepared for his allies. Another watchdog group made up of Trump allies also approved the project earlier this year. But before he consulted the committee, the president was proceeding with the biggest restructuring of the White House in more than 70 years.
President Trump said the project is being paid for by private donations, but public funds are paying for the construction of the bunker and increased security.
The three-judge appellate panel was comprised of Patricia Millet, Neomi Rao, and Bradley Garcia. Mr. Millett was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama. Mr. Rao was nominated by Mr. Trump. Garcia was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Rao wrote a dissenting opinion, citing a law that allows the president to begin renovations to the White House.
“Importantly, the government has presented credible evidence that security vulnerabilities at the White House are ongoing and that halting construction will prolong the vulnerabilities,” Rao wrote, adding that such concerns outweigh the “general aesthetic harm” presented in the lawsuit.
