Guardian US news reports that the US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s $400m White House ballroom project to continue, in a 5-4 decision. The ruling temporarily blocks a lower court order that had stopped construction above ground. That underlying case was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, which is seeking to halt the project through a legal challenge. The supreme court’s action followed a temporary order from Chief Justice John Roberts that had already allowed construction work to proceed.
The unsigned majority opinion said the preservation group lacked standing to sue, while leaving unresolved whether the government’s plan to remove part of the White House was lawful. The trust based its case in part on a declaration from architectural historian Alison Hoagland, who argued that the ballroom’s design would cause an aesthetic, cultural and historical injury. The majority also concluded that the government could suffer irreparable harm if work were stopped, including if only a military installation planned beneath the ballroom were allowed to proceed. The justices therefore did not decide the broader legal question surrounding the demolition of the East Wing.
Donald Trump had demolished the historic East Wing last year to make room for the planned ballroom and has presented the project as a gift to the American people. Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social and said construction of the White House complex would be finished by the summer of 2028. The ruling increases the likelihood that the $400m project will be completed, according to the report.
Roberts joined the dissenting justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in arguing that the project is unlawful because Congress has not authorized it. Roberts said continuing the work would likely infringe Congress’s control over federal spending and its authority over federal property in the District of Columbia. He also rejected the majority’s view that Hoagland’s alleged injury was insufficient, arguing that her work to preserve historic American buildings gave her a sufficient basis to bring the case. The dissent characterized the dispute as a separation-of-powers issue, while the majority focused on whether the trust had demonstrated the legally required injury.