US President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the White House to resume construction on its $400 million ballroom project while it appeals a lower court’s order to halt the work.
Trump’s solicitor general on Friday petitioned the high court to suspend last week’s decision by a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The divided panel ruled last week that the president must stop the White House ballroom’s construction because Congress has not approved the project.
The panel’s majority said the president doesn’t have the unilateral authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House’s East Wing stood before he ordered its demolition last fall.
US Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the filing with the Supreme Court that the East Wing construction was “absolutely required” for the president’s safety, adding that attempts have been made on Trump’s life in recent years.
Limits of presidential authority
While upholding an order halting work on the ballroom, the appeals court had set up another battle in the Supreme Court over the limits of presidential authority.
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which had allowed construction to continue while it considered the case, agreed with a lower court that such a massive White House overhaul required Congress's explicit consent.
It stayed its own decision for two weeks to give Trump time to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The US president lashed out after the 2-1 ruling, calling it "horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful."
The president vowed in a lengthy social media post to immediately appeal to the Supreme Court, while reiterating his argument that the entire project represented a matter of national security.
Trump initially said the construction of the ballroom was necessary to host galas, but has since pointed to the concurrent addition of security features.
Under the district judge's initial order, work was permitted to continue only on a limited set of structures, including those underground.
"This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom," the majority wrote Friday.
"What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court's expeditious litigation without securing Congress's authorisation, as the Constitution and laws require."
