Topline

The Trump administration made its final arguments to the Supreme Court on Wednesday before it decides whether to allow construction to move forward on the White House ballroom, claiming President Donald Trump’s pet project is necessary for national security and discounting claims by the other side that it will ruin people’s enjoyment of the White House.

Key Facts

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overrule lower courts and allow it to keep building the White House ballroom, filing a response Wednesday to arguments made by the National Trust for Historic Preservation opposing the construction.

The National Trust has sued the Trump administration, arguing the White House doesn’t have authority to build the ballroom without congressional authorization—which lower courts have agreed with—and claiming the ballroom’s construction hurts defendants who appreciate the White House as a historical landmark, alleging it harms the building and the “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” of those who enjoy it.

The DOJ argued Wednesday it would harm national security to halt construction now, given security features that are being installed in the building, and took issue with the argument about the ballroom harming White House spectators—claiming that argument could lead to a “see something, sue something” culture in which people can challenge anything on government property they disagree with.

Even if the ballroom does result in “visual displeasure,” the DOJ argues aesthetic complaints about the ballroom aren’t reason to block the project, claiming those opinions are “subjective value judgments that pale compared to the Project’s more concrete public benefits” like “receiv[ing] guests and foreign dignitaries in a safe structure befitting the country’s dignity.”

Now that both sides have submitted filings in the case, the Supreme Court could rule at any time on whether construction can continue while litigation over the ballroom moves forward.

An appeals court ruling ordering the government to stop construction will take effect Friday if the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in by then, or if it agrees with the lower courts that construction should stop.

Crucial Quote

Stopping construction on the ballroom “would leave an unstable, unfinished 70-foot-tall structure on White House grounds, putting the complex at risk and thwarting Secret Service protection,” the DOJ argued Wednesday. The government has previously said construction is approximately 65% complete on the ballroom, and claimed Wednesday that halting construction could cause the unfinished building to “degrade and possibly collapse in high winds.”

Chief Critic

The National Trust has argued the Trump administration is trying to “outrun judicial review” by racing to build the ballroom while litigation moves forward, arguing the Supreme Court should block construction now because it may be too late to do so in the future. The Trump administration “make[s] no secret of the fact that if the Court permits construction to continue, they will declare the case over,” the Trust argued in its filing to the Supreme Court, adding that if the court allows construction, “the injuries to the National Trust, its members, and the public from the unauthorized construction of the ballroom … will in all likelihood become irreversible.”

News Peg

The DOJ’s filing to the Supreme Court came as Trump hyped up the ballroom project to reporters on Wednesday, noting it’s being built out of “very strong stone” and teams are laying high-quality top soil on the site that will mean, “If you’re grass, you’re very happy.” The president also emphasized the security features of the planned ballroom complex, saying it will have “so much a military component, with the drones and bomb shelters and everything else we have in there.”

Tangent

In its filing Wednesday, the DOJ also backtracked on controversial claims it made before an appeals court in June, when its attorney Yaakov Roth suggested the Trump administration could tear down the Statue of Liberty without being challenged in court. As Roth argued that the National Trust doesn’t have standing to sue now that construction had already begun, Judge Patricia Millett posed the hypothetical question of what would happen “if the government decides very quickly and bulldozes the Statue of Liberty,” asking if that means people whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. and saw the landmark upon their arrival would not be able to sue. Roth suggested they would not have standing to sue, agreeing with the judge when she said the government believed “nothing can be done” once construction starts. The DOJ claimed the argument about the Statue of Liberty was a “strawman version of the government’s position” in its filing Wednesday, and now alleged “plenty of Americans” could sue the government in that instance, such as people who operate boat tours to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.

Key Background

Trump’s planned White House ballroom has been one of the most visible and controversial projects of his second term, with his administration’s demolition of the East Wing drawing widespread criticism. The president has long claimed the project would cost $200 million and be paid for solely through private donations—later revising that number to $400 million—but The Washington Post reports the price tag is now more than $600 million, with taxpayers expected to foot at least half of that bill. Judge Richard Leon ruled in March that the ballroom construction was likely unlawful, but his order halting its construction has been on hold while the higher appeals court considered the case, so construction on the ballroom has never stopped. A panel of appeals court judges then ruled 2-1 on Aug. 7 to uphold Leon’s ruling and halt construction, writing the White House cannot continue construction while the litigation continues “without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”

Further Reading

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Allow White House Ballroom Construction (Forbes)