Friday, 7 August 2026, 22:01
The U.S. Court of Appeals sided with historic preservationists and ruled that construction of the White House ballroom cannot move forward without Congress. The decision halts work on the South Lawn project while litigation continues.
The ruling came on Friday from a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, voting 2-1. The majority consisted of Judges Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, and Brad Garcia, an appointee of President Joe Biden. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented. The unsigned majority opinion spanned more than 100 pages.
The court's opinion was direct: "Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help." The judges added that their ruling does not mean the ballroom can never be built. It only means the administration may not build it during the district court's expedited case without securing authorization from Congress.
In its unsigned majority opinion, the court also wrote: "The National Trust has shown, compellingly, that Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House, the People's House, to fit a particular President's desires."
In dissent, Judge Neomi Rao argued that the National Trust lacked legal standing to bring the case. She criticized District Judge Richard Leon, who first ruled against the project, for elevating the group's "aesthetic displeasure" over Trump's national security arguments. Rao wrote that the district court "seized supervision of construction at the White House" and that her colleagues "affirm this judicial overreach."
The case tests the limits of presidential power over the White House grounds. The appeals court rejected the argument that the president can act unilaterally on a project of this scale. It framed the issue as a constitutional question, not a policy debate.
The case stems from Trump's decision last year to demolish the White House's East Wing to make room for the ballroom. It is one of several legal challenges against Trump's pet projects in Washington, including his renovation of the Reflecting Pool, his push to build an American version of Paris's L'Arc de Triomphe, and his plans to turn a public golf course into private, high-end links. Those cases are ongoing.
Friday's ruling marked the second time this week the Trump administration has made headlines for construction plans that have been called into question. An assessment by the National Park Service found that a 250-foot-tall (76-meter-tall) triumphal arch that Trump has proposed building could compromise the historical significance of dozens of sites near its planned location on a traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
The court also noted the ruling "has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy." That leaves the door open for Congress to approve the project, but it blocks any construction in the meantime.
The court also rejected the administration's argument that no court could halt construction even if it were unlawful. During oral argument in June, Judge Millett asked a Justice Department lawyer whether "complete lawlessness by the government" could not be stopped. The lawyer replied, "On these theories, I think that's right." The majority called that position "flatly wrong" and said it "flouts our constitutional order."
The appeals court stayed its own order for two weeks. That gives the Trump administration time to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. If the Supreme Court declines or upholds the ruling, the halt will remain in place unless Congress acts.
The divided ruling sets up a possible high-stakes Supreme Court showdown over the scope of presidential power over the White House.
The decision reversed the appeals court's earlier stance. In April, a federal district judge ordered Trump to stop all above-ground construction until Congress approved the project. The appeals court then allowed work to continue while it weighed the case. Friday's ruling makes clear that the entire project requires congressional approval.
The appeals court's ruling ratified an April 16 order by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon that halted above-ground ballroom construction. Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, allowed underground work to continue, including a bunker and other national security facilities. In his latest decision, Leon rejected the administration's argument that the entire project fell under a security exception, writing, "That is not a reasonable or correct interpretation of my order!"
Trump lashed out at Leon on social media, calling him a judge "who hates Trump" and saying Leon had worked to undermine national security and ensure that "this Great Gift to the United States" would be delayed or never built.
Trump called the appeals court's decision "unjust" on social media and said he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He described the facility's planned bomb shelters, hospital and medical facilities, and "Top Secret Military Facilities" as essential national security features. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation," he wrote.
Preservation groups that filed the lawsuit celebrated the decision. They have argued that the ballroom and helipad would damage the historic South Lawn.
Brent Leggs, the president and CEO of the National Trust, said in a statement: "This is a great day for our country and for the American people's right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House."
The case is centered in Washington, D.C., and does not directly affect California property or projects. However, California historic preservation organizations and legal observers are watching closely because similar disputes over federal landmarks could set a precedent for how courts handle executive authority and historic sites elsewhere, including in the Golden State.
The proposed ballroom and helipad on the South Lawn have been controversial since they were announced. Critics called the ballroom an unnecessary and costly addition to the White House, while supporters saw it as a way to host larger events. The construction was already underway when preservationists filed suit, prompting the legal challenge that reached the appeals court.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed its lawsuit in December 2025, one week after the White House finished demolishing the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that Trump said would seat 999 people. On April 2, the project received final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member body that approves construction on federal property in the Washington region.
According to lead architect Shalom Baranes, the ballroom project is roughly 89,000 square feet, larger than the 55,000-square-foot Executive Mansion, the main White House residence. Trump has been personally involved in details from floor plans to marble selection.
The project is estimated to cost $400 million, according to the appeals court ruling. Trump has said he raised hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy people, including himself, to cover the costs. However, the Trump administration requested $1 billion for the ballroom, which Congress refused in May. In June, Democrats warned that $350 million in funds from a tax cuts law appeared to have been redirected for the ballroom.
Above-grade construction began in the spring and has made considerable progress. Images posted by Trump in the week before the ruling showed multiple levels of concrete support columns and rebar, along with a tower crane. Trump has said the project is on cost and substantially ahead of schedule, and he expects completion in the summer of 2028, months before he leaves office.
Administration lawyers argued that the project is the largest structural change to the White House in more than 70 years and includes critical security features against threats including drones, ballistic missiles, and biological hazards. They said the upgrades are essential to protect the president, his family, and his staff. Preservation lawyers responded that the absence of a ballroom does not amount to a national security emergency, and they called the lower court's conclusion a "commonsense" one.
Trump has maintained that the project is not subject to any oversight. His administration argued in court that no court had authority to halt construction, even if it were deemed unlawful. The appeals court rejected that position, saying, "The bold assertion that the Executive can act with utter lawlessness, destroying treasured national landmarks and harming the interests of individuals, and that no court can stop it flouts our constitutional order."
For now, the ballroom project is on hold. The decision reinforces the principle that major construction on federal landmarks requires congressional approval, not just executive action. The next move belongs to the Supreme Court and, ultimately, Congress.
