President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to continue construction of his $400 million White House ballroom after an appeals court ruled the project lacked the necessary approval from Congress.
The Trump administration asked the justices to keep the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on hold while it prepares a full appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Department lawyers, in their filing, echoed Trump’s contention that the ballroom project is a security necessity. Citing numerous assassination attempts against Trump, the lawyers described the project as “vitally required by national security.”
“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” they wrote.
The D.C. Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on August 7 upheld a lower-court judge’s order directing the administration to halt above-ground construction.
“Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the panel wrote.
The appeals court had paused its order from taking effect for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to challenge it at the Supreme Court.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation brought the case last year after the administration tore down the East Wing and began building a 90,000-square-foot (8,360-square-meter) ballroom without seeking authorization from Congress.
The National Trust in a statement on Friday urged the Supreme Court to turn down the administration’s appeal.
“The Administration brazenly asserted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that even if Ballroom construction were unlawful, not even the Supreme Court had authority to stop it,” the National Trust said. “The Administration’s transparent efforts to evade the rule of law, frustrate judicial review, and limit the availability of meaningful relief in the courts must stop here.”