Supreme Court allows White House ballroom work to proceed amid legal challenge

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the White House to continue construction on a $400 million ballroom project, even as a lawsuit over its legality moves through the courts. The decision, issued on Monday, replaces an earlier temporary order from Chief Justice John Roberts that had been put in place just before a lower-court ruling halting the work was set to take effect.

The case will now return to lower courts, but court documents indicate that significant portions of the project could be finished within months — a timeline far shorter than the typical duration of a legal dispute.

The Trump administration had asked the justices to intervene after federal courts ruled that the project must stop because it lacked congressional approval. The lawsuit, filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that President Donald Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing. The group's lawyers have accused the White House of trying to "outrun the courts" by accelerating construction.

In lower courts, the administration has maintained that the president has full authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings. Government lawyers have also said the ballroom must be completed for national security reasons, though that rationale was not part of the initial announcement, when Trump said the work would be funded by private donations.

The administration says crews are working 20 hours a day on the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom. According to court documents, the framework is expected to be completed by November, much of the facade by April, and full completion by August 2028.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, had ordered a stop to aboveground construction in April, though work on underground bunkers and military installations was allowed to continue. That ruling was suspended but later upheld by a divided appeals court panel. Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents said the project was for Congress to decide, while a third judge, appointed by Trump, argued the preservationist group had no legal standing to sue.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer made that same standing argument to the justices and called the lower court's decision "extraordinary and unlawful," adding that completing the project was "vitally required by national security."

The administration has won several other emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, though the justices have also ruled against some of the president's signature policies after fuller review.