Construction of White House bunker, not ballroom, gets green light 

WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge on Thursday lifted a portion of his order blocking President Donald Trump from constructing a ballroom at the White House to allow the government to construct an underground bunker meant to defend against drones and other attacks.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote in a 10-page opinion that the government can only proceed with construction necessary for the president and his staff’s personal security at the White House complex, not the 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote. “That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reason of my order! My order preliminary enjoined defendants (excluding the president) from ‘taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom.’”

In his March 31 ruling, Leon determined no law grants the president the unilateral authority to continue with construction without approval from Congress, pointing out the president is the “steward,” not the owner, of the White House.

He amended his injunction, issued on March 31 before construction was set to begin in April, to halt only above-ground construction of the planned ballroom rather than any “below-ground construction of national security facilities” and work necessary for presidential security and for security at the White House and the construction site.

On April 1, the National Trust for Historic Preservation asked Leon to clarify his injunction based on Trump’s statement in the Oval Office suggesting he was allowed to continue construction as necessary so long as it related to the safety and security at the White House. Trump further suggested that a stay of Leon’s injunction would not be necessary for construction of the ballroom itself.

In an April 13 reply brief, the Trump administration argued the ballroom, in conjunction with the underground bunker, is an integrated whole and both advance “critical national-security objectives.”

According to the Justice Department, the bunker cannot serve its function “without an appropriate structure to shield and protect” it, the ballroom includes important safety and security features and leaving a “dormant excavation site” next to the White House alone poses significant security risks.

“The court is not positioned to second-guess these determinations about what is needed to ensure presidential security, let alone to superintend the construction process,” the Justice Department said.

But Leon found the government had only shown that the underground construction was related to its national security concerns — not the ballroom. He pointed to a declaration provided by a professional engineer on the project that indicated the “below-surface work is driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction.”

The government asserted several ballroom features — missile-resistant steel columns and beams, drone-proof roofing and bullet- and blast-proof glass window — would advance the security interests of the project as a whole.

Leon was unconvinced and wrote the claims did not justify the government’s “extraordinary, if not disingenuous” understanding of his order. The idea that the bunker needed the ballroom to provide cover did not explain why it was needed for security purposes now, Leon said.

“The fact that the ballroom is planned to include security features such as bullet-proof windows and a drone-proof roof does not bring the structure within the scope of the exception,” Leon wrote.

“While these features may well be beneficial, defendants have not provided any national security justification for why these features must be installed immediately such that they should be excluded from the scope of the injunction” Leon continued. “Nor does it appear defendants could install these features immediately even if they wanted to.”

The Justice Department has already appealed Leon’s March 31 ruling to the D.C. Circuit,  where a three-judge panel ruled on April 11 to stay Leon’s ruling until Friday and remanded the case.

The panel, made up of U.S. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Neomi Rao and Bradley Garcia, noted the extended stay was meant to allow the government to petition the Supreme Court.

Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote a dissent over the decision to remand to Leon for further fact-finding — like the National Trust’s motion to clarify — and said the decision denied the government the stay it was entitled to.

She wrote she would have allowed construction on both the ballroom and the bunker while the government’s appeal moved forward.

“The district court’s order enjoins construction ‘in a manner credibly alleged to pose a serious threat to’ White House security,” Rao wrote. “That concern is weighed against the incidental aesthetic harms asserted by the Trust. Even if the government’s safety concerns are somewhat mitigated by temporary security measures, the current safety of the president, as well as his family and staff, plainly outweighs future aesthetic harms to the Trust.”

Follow @Ryan_Knappy