Appeals court blocks Trump’s White House ballroom construction
NBC News · LC · trust 63/100
In a 2-1 decision , the court affirmed the modified preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon. But they stayed their own ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment.
“Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the appeals court’s ruling said.
That’s because the “Constitution assigns Congress — not the Executive — the responsibility to decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed, even where those changes are said to serve security interests.”
“Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence,” the Ruling said. “The President has no — and claims no — constitutionally assigned authority over that property.”
The ruling paints the current administration as completely ignoring those restrictions.
“Over just three days in October 2025, without undertaking promised consultations or obtaining Congress’s permission, President Trump bulldozed the entire East Wing in order to construct a massive, 90,000 square-foot ballroom paid for by private funds with no congressional oversight,” it said.
“We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now.”
The ruling by U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Brad Garcia, a Biden appointee, says it “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom.
“What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require,” they wrote.
The dissenting judge was Trump appointee Neomi Rao, who said the lower court had “abused its discretion in seizing control of construction at the President’s home and office” through the underlying order that her colleagues were upholding.
That judge had previously let some aspects of the construction to move forward, but then said the Trump administration was taking advantage of a safety and security exception to encompass the entire ballroom construction effort.
“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order!”Leon, a noted fan of exclamation marks , wrote in his prior April order.
“It is, to say the least, incredible, if not disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my Order does not stop ballroom construction because of the safety-and-security exception!” he added.
Share Add NBC News to Google Ryan J. Reilly Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.
Dareh Gregorian Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.
Read the original at NBC News →
Open in TruthVane →