DC Circuit Blocks Trump White House Ballroom Construction: No Unilateral Authority

• A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that President Trump cannot continue construction on the White House ballroom without congressional approval.
• The ruling establishes that Congress must approve any changes to the physical design of the White House, even those claimed to serve security interests.
• The government's funding scheme for the ballroom construction was criticized by the panel as a 'Rube Goldberg' machine-esque attempt to avoid congressional and judicial review.

We are aware of no instance in American history in which a president unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for.

A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that President Donald Trump cannot continue construction on the White House ballroom without congressional approval. The three-judge panel, comprising U.S. Circuit judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia, upheld Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's ruling that no law gives the president unilateral authority to proceed without express approval from Congress.

The majority opinion emphasized that every time a president has sought to change or improve the White House, Congress appropriated the funds. The panel highlighted that the president is a temporary resident of the White House, not its owner, and therefore cannot unilaterally make changes to its physical design.

The ruling may have significant implications for future presidential projects, as it establishes that Congress must approve any changes to the physical design of the White House. The majority opinion noted that the Constitution assigns Congress the responsibility to decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed, even where those changes are said to serve security interests.

The government's funding scheme for the ballroom construction, which involved using private donations and transferring them to the Executive Residence of the White House, was also criticized by the panel. The judge called this a 'Rube Goldberg' machine-esque funding scheme that allowed the government to avoid congressional and judicial review.

This ruling may have far-reaching implications for presidential projects and the relationship between the executive branch and Congress. As the majority opinion noted, 'Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help.' The decision highlights the importance of congressional oversight and approval in matters related to the White House's physical design.

The ruling also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in government funding schemes. By using private donations and avoiding congressional review, the government may have been attempting to circumvent the law and avoid scrutiny.

This ruling may have significant implications for future presidential projects, as it establishes that Congress must approve any changes to the physical design of the White House, even those claimed to serve security interests. Lawyers advising clients on high-profile construction projects should be aware of this precedent and ensure their clients comply with relevant laws and regulations.

Source: Original reporting via CN (Courthouse News)