The case arose from the President's July 2025 announcement of plans to build a 90,000 square-foot ballroom at the White House's East Wing site, funded by private donors. After the President posted on social media in October that 'ground ha[d] been broken,' the East Wing was completely demolished within three days, prompting the National Trust for Historic Preservation to file suit in D.C. federal court.
A three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Millett, Rao, and Garcia issued a per curiam order extending the district court's stay until April 17, 2026, while remanding for clarification of a preliminary injunction's scope. The government had argued that below-ground security installations were 'inseparable from the rest of the Project,' contradicting earlier representations that above-ground and below-ground work were distinct. As the panel noted, 'it remains unclear whether and to what extent the development of certain aspects of the proposed ballroom is necessary to ensure the safety and security of those below-ground national security upgrades.'
The court expressed particular concern about the government's shifting positions on the project's security components. 'Defendants have repeatedly represented to the district court that any below-ground work was distinct from construction of the ballroom itself and could proceed independently,' the panel wrote, yet 'Defendants now seem to suggest that below-ground national security upgrades are inseparable from the rest of the Project.'
District Judge Richard J. Leon had granted the National Trust's preliminary injunction in March 2026, finding that neither the Executive Office of the President nor the National Park Service had statutory authority for the demolition and construction project. Leon concluded the action was likely ultra vires because 'Congress has exclusive constitutional authority over federal property like the White House, and no statute authorized the President to demolish an entire Wing of the White House and replace it with a privately funded ballroom.'
The government argued for an emergency stay, contending the injunction caused irreparable harm to national security. Officials described 'bomb shelters, [a] hospital and medical area, protective partitioning, and Top Secret Military installations' already built in the excavation site, arguing that construction delays extended security vulnerabilities. However, the circuit panel found the government's harm arguments raised 'unresolved factual questions' about the intersection with the district court's exception allowing measures 'strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.'
Circuit Judge Rao issued a sharp dissent, arguing the majority 'constructively denies the government the stay to which it is entitled.' She contended the National Trust lacked standing because its congressionally chartered purposes don't cover the White House, which sits in President's Park where the Trust 'cannot acquire donations of real property' or 'preserve or administer such property.' Rao also argued the construction was authorized under 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(1), which allows presidential 'improvement' of the Executive Residence, interpreting the term to include 'any permanent structure' in real property law.
The remand order dismissed the government's stay motion as moot and directed the mandate be issued immediately to allow for potential Supreme Court review. Planning documents indicate the ballroom project was originally expected to be completed by summer 2028, with above-ground construction scheduled to begin imminently when the litigation commenced.