Supreme Court allows Trump to move forward with White House ballroom construction

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a win to President Donald Trump by allowing him to move forward indefinitely with the construction of his new White House ballroom.

The court, divided 5-4, granted an emergency request filed by the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have put the aboveground portion of the project on hold. This followed an interim decision along similar lines issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on Aug. 21.

The legal challenge was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argued that the president did not have unilateral authority to proceed with construction.

In the unsigned ruling , the court said that the trust likely does not have legal standing to bring the underlying lawsuit. The court did not reach any conclusion on whether Trump has authority to carry out construction without congressional approval.

“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks ... standing to challenge the project in federal court,” the court said.

Roberts ultimately joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

“Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year. That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote.

The trust’s claim for standing hinges on a declaration made by member Alison Hoagland, a preservationist who lives in Washington and serves on the organization’s board of trustees.

Hoagland regularly walks by the White House, adding that she would “suffer both professional and personal injuries, including to my aesthetic, cultural and historical interests, if a ballroom of the proposed form and scale were constructed.”

The Supreme Court majority concluded the court had never found legal standing in such a situation before.

“To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury,” the court said.

Roberts said he would have found that Hoagland did have standing, noting that as a historic preservationist, she can be “aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys.”

The administration has said in court filings that construction was 65% complete as of Aug. 24, with a 250-person crew working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. The White House has said the $400 million project will be funded entirely by private donations, an assertion that has been widely disputed . Secret Service funds have already been directed to cover some of the project’s security enhancements .

The overall plan includes an extensive underground component, including secure locations and medical facilities that the administration has argued are needed for security.

Trump praised the Supreme Court ruling in a post on Truth Social .

“When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of,” Trump wrote. “The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said in a statement that the trust was “deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling,” while noting that “the majority did not weigh in on whether the ballroom project was in fact legal.”

“This is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument—that each President is a temporary steward of the People’s House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress,” Leggs said.

A federal judge had ruled in favor of the trust, saying that while the underground construction could move forward, the ballroom itself could not be built while litigation continued.

On Aug. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that decision.

The trust argued that the government had no authority to build the ballroom under a federal law that requires the “express authority of Congress” to build on federal land in Washington.

But the Trump administration countered that other provisions of federal law allow the president to undertake improvements on the White House grounds.