Historic Preservation Group Asks Supreme Court to Halt Trump’s $400 Million White House Ballroom

WASHINGTON — Historic preservationists asked the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to deny President Donald Trump’s appeal to continue construction on his $400 million White House ballroom on the grounds of the demolished East Wing.

In response to Trump’s application to the high court, the National Trust for Historic Preservation argued irreparable harm would result if construction continued, and that the project is “illegal” without authorization from Congress.

The Trust lawyers highlighted that the Trump administration has argued in court the ballroom will be “virtually impossible to deconstruct” because it will be constructed out of nuclear power plant-grade concrete.

“That is the essence of irreparable harm,” the Trust argued in the 48-page filing.

“Petitioners make no secret of the fact that if the Court permits construction to continue, they will declare the case over,” according to the Trust, a private nonprofit chartered by Congress in 1949 to encourage the protection of historic sites.

By contrast, the organization argued, the president and his administration would not be harmed if the Supreme Court left intact a lower court order halting above-ground construction.

Security complex

Court filings from the administration have publicly revealed that a security complex under the ballroom will descend five stories and is well on its way to completion.

The concrete-and-steel “superstructure,” reaching five stories deep and 70 feet high, already encompassing about 50,000 square feet, is 65% finished, according to the administration.

Plans include a 1,000-seat ballroom incorporated into a “highly integrated military complex” with drone-proof ceilings, bomb shelters, sniper nests, “military-grade venting,” and “state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel on Aug. 7 upheld, 2-1, the lower court order blocking all but underground construction while litigation continued.

The Trust further argued Tuesday that any above-ground construction happening is already illegal because Congress didn’t authorize it, which means the administration would not likely win the case should the Supreme Court take it up.

“The question is simply who decides whether a ballroom can be built on federal property. Our constitutional system and federal law commits that choice to Congress,” the Trust argued.

“If Petitioners believe there is a pressing need for a ballroom, nothing prevents them from asking Congress for one — today, tomorrow, or any time in the future,” the brief reads. “But Petitioners’ efforts to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows Petitioners to complete a ballroom they lacked any authority to commence in the first place.”

Democrats back preservationists

More than 30 Democratic U.S. senators, U.S. House Democratic leaders and committee ranking members from both chambers filed a brief Tuesday in support of the Trust.

Lawmakers who signed the brief are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

“The White House is, indisputably, federal property. It was built only after Congress authorized its construction and appropriated funds to cover that expense,” the lawmakers wrote. “And for over two centuries since, the White House has been renovated and maintained pursuant to congressional authorizations and appropriations.”

But Congress “neither authorized the demolition of the White House’s East Wing and construction of a ballroom nor appropriated funds to carry out that project,” they continued.

Trump maintains the ballroom project is being funded entirely by private donations.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was Trump’s personal attorney before joining the government, told the Supreme Court in the administration’s application last week that $200 million has already been spent or committed to the project.

Sauer argued that a statute governing the Department of the Interior allows private donations to cover projects on land administered by the National Park Service. The service, an agency within the Interior Department, manages the White House and President’s Park.

The Democratic senators who signed onto the amicus brief were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Gary Peters of Michigan, Adam Schiff of California, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon

The Democratic House leaders who joined the brief were Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California.

The other representatives who signed on were Robert Garcia, Jared Huffman, Ro Khanna, Mark Takano, Maxine Waters and Zoe Lofgren of California; Jim Hines of Connecticut; Rick Larsen and Adam Smith of Washington state; Jamie Raskin of Maryland; Bobby Scott of Virginia; Bennie Thompson of Mississippi; and Gregory Meeks and Joe Morelle of New York.

Republican AGs want ballroom

A brief led by the Republican Attorneys General Raúl Labrador of Idaho and Todd Rokita of Indiana argued the Supreme Court should side with Trump because the National Trust allegedly built its case on the “associational standing” of one of its board members who would not suffer harm.

“This case is about more than a ballroom. It is about whether a passerby’s aesthetic objection to a government construction project furnishes not just the passerby standing, but an uninjured association standing to air its grievances in court,” the attorneys general wrote.

The argument echoed Trump’s many public statements that the case against his ballroom rests on the objection of one person who sometimes walks by the White House.

That risk is “of significant interest to States across the Nation,” they wrote.  “Amici States have extensive experience litigating against organizations that invoke associational standing as their ticket into court.”

The attorneys general concluded: “The Court should not allow groups whose members claim offense to sue over virtually anything and everything.”

A federal district judge in December had already denied the Trust’s initial request for a temporary restraining order based on the lack of irreparable harm for an initial plaintiff.

The most recent lower court decision is based on an amended complaint filed by the Trust in early March.

In addition to Idaho and Indiana, the Republican attorneys general who signed the brief are from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Two members of the Arizona state legislature also signed it.

by Ashley Murray, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis with questions: info@virginiamercury.com.