Supreme Court says Trump can continue ballroom work as it weighs case

cigaretteman

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
3,946
4,530
113
Boooo!:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Friday allowed work to continue on the White House ballroom in the short term, issuing a stay that gives the court time to weigh an emergency appeal in a lawsuit challenging the project.

The action pauses a Friday deadline imposed by an appeals court to halt construction while the court challenge plays out. The appeals court concluded earlier this month that the controversial 90,000-square-foot addition to the executive mansion probably requires congressional approval to continue.


It’s unclear how long Roberts’s administrative stay will last, but typically such holds remain in effect for a few days to give the court time to fully consider the underlying appeal.


The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to immediately block that decision, arguing that ballroom construction must go on for the safety of the president and national security.
The ballroom construction is intertwined with work on a five-story underground military complex that will feature shelters, a hospital and more to protect the president and senior officials in an emergency, the administration said in court filings. The overall project is expected to have a price tag of more than $400 million.
Administration officials said the ballroom, which will be hardened with missile-resistant columns and a drone-proof roof, will act as a shield for the military complex and the rest of the White House more generally.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop construction, arguing that Trump exceeded his authority in launching the project, which would be the biggest expansion of the White House in decades.
That argument prevailed in lower courts, which have twice ordered the White House to pause work on the ballroom while allowing construction of the underground complex to continue. But amid legal machinations, those orders have yet to take effect, allowing the administration to race forward with building.
The National Trust has questioned the administration’s claim that the entire project is needed for national security reasons and highlighted concerns about the ballroom’s impacts on the White House’s sight lines and historic character.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

Aardvark86

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
2,480
3,496
113
As usual I don’t get too worked up one way or the other about administrative stays. I’d imagine whatever the next thing is comes on the next scheduled order day which I think is two mondays from now.

I’m guessing there’s three issues here
1. Standing. I don’t know enough about nht organic statute but the asserted member interest they invoked struck me as a pretty stupidly extended invite to scale back standing based on generalized injuries to asthetic principles first allowed in (ironically) scrap.
2. I don’t know about the authorization issues the admin is raising, but I don’t think much of the appropriations one - even if it is privately funded it’s a project involving a federal asset.
3. I also would imagine there might be underlying concerns about redressability, ie, what is the ultimate remedy here since rebuilding a destroyed historic structure (setting aside feasibility) is a bit of a strange thing since the history is, well, gone.
 

St. Louis Hawk

Heisman
Feb 5, 2003
4,303
13,106
113
As usual I don’t get too worked up one way or the other about administrative stays. I’d imagine whatever the next thing is comes on the next scheduled order day which I think is two mondays from now.

I’m guessing there’s three issues here
1. Standing. I don’t know enough about nht organic statute but the asserted member interest they invoked struck me as a pretty stupidly extended invite to scale back standing based on generalized injuries to asthetic principles first allowed in (ironically) scrap.
2. I don’t know about the authorization issues the admin is raising, but I don’t think much of the appropriations one - even if it is privately funded it’s a project involving a federal asset.
3. I also would imagine there might be underlying concerns about redressability, ie, what is the ultimate remedy here since rebuilding a destroyed historic structure (setting aside feasibility) is a bit of a strange thing since the history is, well, gone.

Standing? My understanding is that standing exists if a person alleges that they like to look at photos of babies. Was I misinformed? ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wobmam Rulez!

RockyMtNole

Heisman
Jul 1, 2025
5,583
23,035
113
The Supreme Court needs to get off its collective ***. Roberts invites all these emergency appeals and then doesn’t act on them. If a few days more is sufficient to address this, then they could’ve already decided.

Trump has people working round the clock to support his argument that the building is too far along to stop. I can only imagine the shoddy construction taking place, just like the reflecting pool and every other thing Trump touches.
 

Wobmam Rulez!

All-American
Aug 4, 2025
4,644
7,202
113
Since the Supreme Court can accept presents, I wonder how much Drumpf gave Robert's for his birthday "present"?
 
Tiger Illustrated

Latest

  1. 01 Tiger Illustrated Football Where we think this Clemson football team stands entering October
  2. 02 Tiger Illustrated Football CLEMSON FOOTBALL: The Day After
  3. 03 Tiger Illustrated Football Clemson grinds up Cal en route to win No. 3
  4. 04 Tiger Illustrated Football Davidson, ground game lead Clemson past Cal 24-10
  5. 05 Tiger Illustrated Football Clemson - Cal Postgame Notes + Dabo Swinney News Conference