Judges send dispute back to lower court for clarification while maintaining short-term pause on construction ruling.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court on Saturday extended a temporary pause affecting a lower court ruling that had blocked construction tied to a proposed White House ballroom project, while directing further review of unresolved issues in the case.
In an unsigned order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit continued an administrative stay of a prior injunction through April 17. The extension provides time for the federal government to consider seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court and for the district court to clarify factual and legal questions raised during the appeal.
The case stems from a plan announced in July 2025 by President Donald Trump to construct a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the White House East Wing, with funding expected to come from private donors.
According to court filings, the East Wing was demolished shortly after an October announcement that construction had begun, despite assurances that preservation concerns would be addressed. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed suit, arguing that the project proceeded without congressional authorization and violated federal law.
On March 31, a federal district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims and issued a preliminary injunction halting further construction. The order allowed limited exceptions for work necessary to maintain safety and security at the White House complex.
Federal officials appealed that decision, arguing that the injunction could create national security concerns by delaying construction activities following demolition. Government filings described the site as containing an open excavation and planned installation of protective infrastructure and military-related systems.
The appeals panel did not rule on the underlying legal merits but identified outstanding questions about how the district court’s injunction accounts for those security considerations. Judges also pointed to inconsistencies in the government’s position, including earlier assertions that underground construction work could proceed independently of the ballroom project.
The panel further questioned whether delaying construction would impose additional harm, noting that the ballroom project is not expected to be completed until 2028.
Rather than issue a broader stay, the court returned the case to the district court for clarification on how its order addresses ongoing security needs during the appeals process. The government’s request for a more expansive stay was dismissed as moot.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Neomi Rao stated that the government had shown sufficient legal authority to proceed with the project and argued that delaying construction could increase security risks. She wrote that those concerns outweighed the objections raised by the plaintiffs.
The case will now proceed in district court under expedited review as litigation over the proposed ballroom continues.
Original article
Comments