Judge blocks White House ballroom construction

WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked construction of President Donald Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom, finding no law grants him the unilateral authority to continue without congressional authorization.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the construction, set to begin in April, after previously denying a similar motion that argued Trump had no constitutional authority.

After the National Trust amended its complaint, Leon concluded “no statute come close” to granting Trump’s claim that he has the authority to summarily demolish the White House East Wing and use private donations to construct the 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

“The president of the United States is the steward of the White House for further generations of First Families,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote in the 35-page opinion. “He is not, however, the owner!”

The National Capital Planning Commission — largely made up of Trump allies — was set to take a final vote on the president’s ballroom project this coming Thursday, but it is unclear whether the meeting will still take place.

In its amended complaint, the National Trust argued the construction violated the National Park Service’s Organic Act, along with U.S. Code Section 105 and Section 8106. Under the Justice Department’s reading of those statutes, it assumes Congress has granted nearly unlimited power for the president to construct anything, anywhere on federal land in Washington, regardless of the source of funds.

“This clearly is not how Congress and former presidents have managed the White House for centuries, and this court will not be the first to hold that Congress has ceded its powers in such a significant fashion!” Leon wrote.

Leon determined Section 105, which authorizes the president to conduct ordinary maintenance and repair of the White House with a $2.5 million congressionally appropriated fund, only allows for “things like replacing the lightbulbs, fixing broken furniture and changing the wallpaper, not wholesale demolition of entire buildings and construction of new ones.”

At a March 17 hearing, a Justice Department attorney asserted that the ballroom project was merely an “alteration” and thus under the National Park Service’s legal authority, a description Leon slammed then and in his opinion as a “brazen interpretation, indeed!”

Leon cited the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Learning Resource Inc. v. Trump, which struck down his International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, where the high court found the president had clearly misinterpreted the meaning of the term “regulate” in the statute to grant him revenue-raising power.

The neighboring maintenance-related terms surrounding “alteration” and “improvement” make clear the president’s authority is limited under the statute and consistent with the principle that Congress “does not hide elephants in mouse holes," Leon quoted from the Supreme Court.

He rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the related construction laws have no role in the National Trust’s ultra vires claim* —*Latin for “beyond the powers” — citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo to overturn court’s deference to agencies’ statutory interpretations.

“Please! The Supreme Court itself has made it clear that courts have a duty to locate the ‘single, best meaning’ of the statute, no matter the cause of action,” Leon wrote. “Ultra vires review does not suspend commonsense interpretive canons, nor does it grant the government flexibility to adopt an ‘utterly unreasonable’ reading of a statute that is ‘contrary to the statute’s plain language.’”

The Justice Department has described a funding scheme to get around the park service’s $2.5 million alteration fund, in which the park service manages a fundraising account for private donations while the Office of the Executive Residence leads the construction project.

Leon, who rejected the National Trust’s first challenge due to the Executive Residence not being an agency one could challenge in court, described the scheme as a “Rube Goldberg contraption.”

“While its legality is not squarely at issue here, this funding mechanism is, to say the least, a far cry from affirmative congressional authorization,” Leon wrote. “Defendants cannot evade the limitations of [Section 105] and the 2024 appropriations act through a series of unrelated statutes that say nothing about the president, the White House or the construction of a ballroom.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In his conclusion, Leon said it was not too late for Congress to ultimately approve the ballroom project, appropriate the necessary funds or decide some other funding scheme is acceptable. Either way, Leon wrote, Congress will retain its authority over the nation’s property and its government spending oversight.

“The National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be vindicated,” Leon wrote. “And the American people will benefit from the branches of government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles. Not a bad outcome, that!”

Follow @Ryan_Knappy