NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court has again sided with the Trump administration, allowing construction on the White House ballroom project to continue while the case continues to be litigated in the lower courts.
The court split 5-4 in granting the emergency request. The decision replaces a temporary order Chief Justice John Roberts issued just hours before a lower-court ruling blocking the work was set to take effect. The underlying litigation will continue in the lower courts, but court documents indicate key parts of the project could be completed within months, potentially outpacing the legal process.
Trump quickly celebrated the decision, declaring that the high court had cleared the way for the massive project to move forward “without any further contingency, doubt, or threat.”
“We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
TRUMP’S WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM FOES FACE ‘VERY TOUGH ARGUMENT’ AT SUPREME COURT, LEGAL EXPERTS SAY
Trump said the “magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex” is expected to be completed in summer 2028 and predicted it will be “something that the entire Country is very proud of.”
He also took a swipe at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, blasting its legal challenge as a “baseless lawsuit” and claiming the project is both under budget and ahead of schedule.
“The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump wrote.
The president’s victory lap came as Chief Justice John Roberts issued a strongly worded dissent from the latest order, declaring that construction of the ballroom is “likely unlawful” and warning that allowing the project to proceed risks infringing on Congress’ constitutional powers.
“The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place,” Roberts wrote. “Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year.”
APPEALS COURT SAYS FEDERAL JUDGE MUST RECONSIDER BLOCKING WH BALLROOM, WEIGH NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
“That construction is likely unlawful,” he wrote.
Roberts pointed to federal law that prohibits the construction of any “building or structure” on federal government parkland in Washington, D.C., without express authorization from Congress.
The chief justice argued that the ballroom falls squarely within that restriction because it is being built on President’s Park, federal land that encompasses the White House and surrounding grounds.
“The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia,” Roberts wrote. “Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling ‘express authority’ for the Executive’s construction of it.”
TRUMP SAYS WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM RULING JEOPARDIZES LIVES OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS, VOWS SUPREME COURT APPEAL
The Supreme Court’s decision allows construction to continue while the underlying legal challenge plays out, but it does not settle the ultimate question of whether the ballroom project is lawful.
The case remains in litigation in the lower courts, meaning Roberts’ assertion that the construction is “likely unlawful” represents his view in dissent rather than a final determination by the Supreme Court.
DOJ CITES WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER SHOOTING IN PUSH TO DROP LAWSUIT AGAINST BALLROOM
Roberts also took issue with the court’s treatment of Alison Hoagland, who originally challenged the project, arguing that both the historic nature of the White House and her interest in its preservation deserved greater weight.
“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person,” Roberts wrote.
REPUBLICANS QUESTION TRUMP’S ‘PRIVATELY FUNDED’ BALLROOM AFTER REPORT POINTS TO TAXPAYER BURDEN
“In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” he wrote.
“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers.”
Roberts closed his dissent by invoking former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and issuing a pointed warning about how decisions involving the White House are made.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Winston Churchill once remarked that ‘[w]e shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us,’” Roberts wrote.
“All the more reason to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”
“I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.
In addition to Roberts, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson also dissented.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read the full article here
