Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift injunction blocking White House East Wing ballroom work

The Trump administration has formally asked the Supreme Court to either swiftly wipe out a lower-court order blocking above-ground work on the White House East Wing ballroom project or take the case for full review, escalating a fight the justices already weighed in on once on an emergency basis. In a petition filed Nov. 5, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should summarily reverse the ruling in National Park Service, et al. v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States or, if not, grant review on the merits.

For now, the practical effect is unchanged: above-ground construction can continue. The Supreme Court on Aug. 31, by a 5-4 vote, put U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon’s injunction on hold while the government sought further review. That stay remains in place while the new petition is pending.

The case began after the National Trust for Historic Preservation sued on Dec. 12, 2025, arguing the project could not proceed until the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the plans, the NCPC approved them, and Congress authorized the construction. Work had begun in October 2025, and the project record says demolition of the East Wing was completed in December 2025. Leon then issued a preliminary order on March 31, 2026, barring above-ground construction while allowing below-ground work and above-ground activity strictly necessary for safety and security. On Aug. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, upheld that order.

The administration’s central argument is that the preservation group should not have been allowed to sue in the first place. The petition says the dispute was brought “at the behest of a single passerby claiming she will dislike how the new building looks.” That refers to Alison K. Hoagland, a National Trust member in Washington who said she visits the White House area about once a month and would be harmed in her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” because she objects to the project’s “scale,” “height,” and “massing.” Sauer argues that is not the kind of concrete injury required for Article III standing, the constitutional rule that a plaintiff must show a real stake in the dispute to be in federal court.

The case also raises a separate question about who has legal authority to alter White House grounds. The lower courts leaned heavily on a federal law, 40 U.S.C. § 8106, that says a building or structure cannot be erected on federal public grounds in Washington without express authorization from Congress. Judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, writing for the D.C. Circuit majority, concluded Congress controls construction and demolition on White House grounds and had not authorized the ballroom project. The administration counters that other laws, including 3 U.S.C. § 105(d), give the executive branch sufficient authority to proceed with the East Wing renovation.

Sauer told the justices their Aug. 31 emergency order “has all but answered the question presented” — “Whether the district court erred in enjoining the on-going renovation of the East Wing at the White House” — and said the project should move forward “outside the shadow of judicial superintendence.” The administration also says halting the work would cause irreparable harm and that the project is tied to national-security needs.

The Supreme Court’s earlier order did not decide whether the ballroom itself is lawful, but it signaled skepticism about the Trust’s ability to sue. In its unsigned Aug. 31 stay, the court said “the government has established that it is likely to succeed on the merits of a significant legal question, that it would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and that the balance of equities tips in its favor.” Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Roberts wrote that the challenged construction “is likely unlawful.”

The Trust’s response is due Dec. 7, according to public docket trackers. If the justices decline to step in, the Aug. 31 stay would end and Leon’s injunction against above-ground construction would take effect again.