The U.S. Court of Appeals has allowed construction on the White House Ballroom to continue until at least April 17, extending a moratorium on a lower court order barring further construction.
On Saturday, the District of Columbia’s three-judge appellate panel explained that the new deadline would allow President Donald Trump’s administration to “seek Supreme Court review” of lower court orders.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The ruling was the result of a March 31 order from the court of Judge Richard Leon, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush.
Mr. Leon ordered a moratorium on construction on the ballroom, saying the project, which would bring major changes to the nation’s capital, required Congressional approval.
However, in his decision, Leon added exceptions and loopholes to the order. For example, his injunction excluded “construction necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.”
He also issued a 14-day moratorium on the injunction, meaning it would not take effect immediately, to give the Trump administration time to appeal. That stay was scheduled to expire this week.
But the appeals court on Saturday gave the Trump administration several more days to begin its appeal.
Questions about Trump’s claims
But Saturday’s decision divided the Court of Appeals, with Justices Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia forming the majority opinion, and Justice Neomi Rao dissenting.
Millett and Garcia were appointed by Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively. Meanwhile, Mr. Rao is an appointee of President Trump.
Although the deadline to stop construction was extended, the majority questioned the Trump administration’s claims.
The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that pausing ballroom construction poses a national security risk, and on April 4 filed an emergency motion to remove all barriers to construction.
But an appeals court ruled Saturday that the Trump administration had not yet shown that national security concerns were exempt from the original order’s exemptions.
“Defendants do not explain in the record how, if at all, the injunction would interfere with existing plans for the safety and security of the rest of the White House during the construction project,” the majority wrote.
It also noted that the Trump administration “repeatedly told the district court that any underground construction is distinct from the construction of a banquet hall.”
This, in turn, led the judge to question why the construction of the ballroom was “necessary to ensure the safety and security” of “underground national security enhancements,” as the Trump team argued.
The appeals court also used Saturday’s ruling to push back on the scheduling debate.
The Trump administration had argued that delaying construction of the ballroom while the court process was ongoing also posed a national security risk.
But the appeals court noted that the Trump administration itself acknowledged that the ballroom is expected to be a multiyear project.
“The planning documents on record estimate that the banquet hall was not scheduled to be completed for nearly three years after groundbreaking,” the court explained.
“Thus, in this record, it is unclear how potential delays in construction would cause further harm beyond the anticipated and consciously undertaken risks of the White House’s long-running, large-scale construction project.”
Does Congress need approval?
The appellate court majority ultimately sent the matter back to the lower court for clarification of “unresolved factual issues” posed by the Trump administration and for further details on the scope of the national security exception.
However, in his dissenting opinion, Rao argued that the majority’s demands for “further fact-finding” were impeding the Trump administration’s ability to continue its work.
She also argued that the “irreparable harm” caused by the cancellation of the ballroom’s construction “is clearly of greater concern than the generalized aesthetic damage” raised by the project’s critics.
Construction of the White House ballroom has been a flashpoint for the Trump administration, especially since construction began last October.
To make room for the massive 90,000 square foot (8,360 square meter) building, the Trump administration abruptly demolished the East Wing of the White House, which had existed since 1902.
President Trump previously told reporters that the ballroom, which is located near the east wing, “will not be touched,” and that there will be no “interference” with the old building.
Critics claim they were blindsided by the destruction of the East Tower, which took place within about three days and without prior notice.
In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the ballroom project.
The paper argued that the president overstepped his authority by unilaterally choosing to build a ballroom on the White House grounds without Congressional approval, the most transformative project in the nation’s capital in recent history.
President Trump countered that he had the right to change the structure, as previous presidents have done.
But Judge Leon sided with the National Trust in his March ruling, saying Trump had overstepped his bounds.
“Defendant’s reading of the statute assumes that Congress has given the president nearly unrestricted authority to build anything on federal land in the District of Columbia, regardless of the source of the funding,” Leon wrote.
This is clearly not the way Congress and presidents have run the White House for centuries, and this court is not the first to find that Congress has ceded power in such a significant way. ”
