Chief Justice John Roberts joins Supreme Court’s three liberal justices in dissent against commencing construction on Trump’s White House ballroom project, calling it ‘likely unlawful’
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory, allowing construction of his White House ballroom to continue despite conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining the Court’s three liberal justices in dissent and calling the project “likely unlawful.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling
The 5-4 ruling overturned a lower-court order that had blocked above-ground construction on the project while a legal challenge played out.
Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, writing, “We are living in the Golden Age of America and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C. When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of.”
The president later said the project is under budget and ahead of schedule.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued the Trump administration over the project, arguing that the president lacked authority to demolish the White House’s East Wing and construct the new ballroom without congressional approval.
Battle over the White House ballroom
A federal judge previously issued an injunction blocking above-ground construction while permitting work on an underground military facility to continue. The D.C. Circuit upheld the injunction, leading the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Trump administration argued that halting construction could create security and other problems and said the project is being funded through private donations rather than taxpayer money.
The National Trust, meanwhile, argued that the ballroom requires congressional authorization.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows construction to continue while the broader legal battle proceeds but does not determine whether the ballroom project itself is legal. The majority concluded that the National Trust is unlikely to have legal standing to challenge the construction and said the Trump administration could suffer significant harm if work remains halted.
Split with conservatives
Roberts broke with the Court’s other conservatives and sided with the three liberal justices in dissent.
The chief justice argued that the National Trust does have standing and that the ballroom project is “likely unlawful” because Congress has not expressly authorized the president to undertake the construction.
Roberts specifically defended preservationist Alison Hoagland, who argued the project will harm her ability to view and study the historic White House.
The Court’s majority characterized Hoagland’s alleged injury as an aesthetic objection. Roberts, however, argued that her longstanding work involving and interest in the White House gives her a concrete legal injury sufficient to challenge the project.
Although Trump can now move forward with above-ground construction, the ruling leaves the underlying dispute unresolved. The case will continue through the lower courts, where the National Trust can continue challenging the Trump administration’s authority to carry out the project.