Historic preservation group tells U.S. Supreme Court Trump’s White House ballroom is unlawful without congressional approval

Washington historic preservationists asked the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to deny President Donald Trump’s request to continue work on a planned White House ballroom tied to the replacement of the demolished East Wing. The National Trust for Historic Preservation said that allowing construction to proceed would cause “irreparable harm” and that the project is being pursued without what it described as the required congressional approval for the plan, according to an account of the arguments reported by Kentucky Lantern.

The dispute centers on Trump’s bid to keep construction moving while the case plays out at the nation’s highest court. Kentucky Lantern reported that in response to Trump’s application to the Supreme Court, the National Trust argued the government should not be permitted to move forward because the loss of historic integrity and permanent changes cannot be undone if the court ultimately rules against the construction.

The filing addressed the timeline of the work underway at the White House site, where construction equipment has been operating in connection with the ballroom project. Kentucky Lantern’s article describes the project as a $400 million effort and says it is linked to the East Wing, which was demolished as part of the broader renovation and rebuilding effort.

The preservation group’s position, as described in the report, is that the legal authority for proceeding rests on the question of whether Congress has approved the relevant actions. The Supreme Court application seeking continuation of construction is, in that framing, an effort to prevent any pause from becoming a de facto stop while the court considers whether the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits.

Under the structure of the Supreme Court’s review, requests to allow ongoing construction generally test whether a party seeking relief can show urgency and harm that cannot be remedied later through damages or other measures. Kentucky Lantern reported the National Trust relied on that standard, arguing that if construction continues, the impact would be immediate and permanent and therefore should be treated as irreparable.

The case is now set on the Supreme Court’s docket posture following the preservation group’s response to Trump’s application. While the next step depends on the high court’s decisions on the request to continue construction and any further merits review, the immediate question before the court is whether the project should proceed during the legal process or be paused to preserve the status quo, the report said.