The Supreme Court has allowed White House ballroom construction to continue while the government pursues further review. The August 31 order pauses a lower-court injunction but does not decide whether the project is legal.
Key Facts
- U.S. Supreme Court: The Court stayed the preliminary injunction that had restricted above-ground construction.
- Immediate effect: Construction may continue during the period defined in the stay order.
- Unresolved question: The Court expressly declined to decide whether the East Wing project is legal.
Why the Court granted a stay
The unsigned opinion focused mainly on whether the National Trust for Historic Preservation has standing to bring its challenge. Standing means a party has suffered the kind of concrete injury required to sue in federal court.
The Court said the government was likely to show that the Trust lacked standing. It characterized the asserted injury as disagreement with or distaste for the ballroom’s design rather than a sufficiently concrete injury.
The majority also concluded that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay. It credited declarations describing the ballroom and underground facilities as parts of an integrated security and construction project.
The order does not identify the justices who joined the unsigned majority.
Roberts said the project was likely unlawful
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Roberts wrote that the ballroom construction was “likely unlawful” because Congress had not expressly authorized it.
His conclusion relied on 40 U.S.C. § 8106. That law generally bars construction on federal public grounds in Washington without express congressional authority.
Roberts rejected the government’s reliance on laws covering improvements to the Executive Residence and National Park Service management. In his view, neither provision expressly authorized replacing the East Wing with a ballroom.
Roberts also disagreed with the majority’s standing analysis. He concluded that a Trust member’s documented interest in viewing and studying the historic White House was concrete enough to support the lawsuit.
The dissent is not the Court’s controlling decision. Its assessment of likely unlawfulness is therefore not a holding that the project violates federal law.
What each side argued
The federal applicants argued that the president and National Park Service had statutory authority for the project. They also described the above-ground ballroom and underground facilities as an integrated design serving security needs.
The National Trust argued that Congress had not supplied the express authorization required for the construction. It also said the lower court’s order allowed underground military work and above-ground work needed to protect those facilities.
The Supreme Court resolved neither statutory argument. Its order instead granted temporary relief based on standing and the other factors courts consider when deciding whether to pause an injunction.
How the dispute reached the Supreme Court
A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against most above-ground construction. A preliminary injunction temporarily limits conduct while a case remains unresolved.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed that injunction on August 7. The injunction permitted underground military and medical construction and above-ground work strictly needed for safety and security.
The government then filed its Supreme Court stay application on August 13. The Trust filed its opposition on August 18, and the government replied the following day.
What happens next
The stay is tied to a timely government petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case. Such a petition is called a petition for a writ of certiorari.
If the Court denies review, the stay will end automatically. If it grants review, the stay will continue until the Court sends down its judgment.
The underlying lawsuit remains unresolved. Later proceedings may address both the Trust’s standing and the project’s legality.
Sources
- Supreme Court opinion and order in National Park Service v. National Trust
- Supreme Court docket for No. 26A203
- Federal applicants’ application for a stay
- National Trust’s opposition to the stay application
- Federal applicants’ reply supporting a stay
- D.C. Circuit opinion in National Trust v. National Park Service
