WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday that work can keep going on a huge new ballroom at the White House, at least for now. A judge ordered the work stopped in March. He said Congress, which controls how the government spends money, never approved it. The Trump administration says the building is needed for security and should not have to wait. The ballroom sits where the East Wing used to be. It covers about 90,000 square feet, twice the size of the main White House. It is expected to cost taxpayers more than $300 million. The court has not decided the case yet.
Why it matters: The real fight is over who decides how the country spends money, the president or Congress.
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a lower-court injunction, allowing construction of a new White House ballroom to continue while litigation proceeds. The order was brief and signed by Chief Justice John Roberts. It resolves nothing about the underlying question. In March, Federal District Judge Richard Leon ordered above-ground work halted, holding that Congress had never appropriated money for the project. Congress controls federal spending under Article I of the Constitution, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the administration, rather than seeking that approval, is trying to build fast enough that courts cannot meaningfully intervene. In its filing the Trust wrote that the government has decided to try to outrun judicial review. The administration's position is that the structure serves national security and military functions and that delay carries its own costs. The building occupies the former East Wing site, runs about 90,000 square feet, and is roughly twice the footprint of the main White House. Estimated cost to taxpayers has passed $300 million, despite earlier statements that private money would cover it. Announced features include bomb shelters, a medical facility and a drone port. A stay is a procedural ruling about who bears the risk while a case is decided, not a judgment on the merits. But when the disputed act is pouring concrete, the distinction thins. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll in April found 56% of Americans disapproved of the project.
Background
The last full-year appropriations fight this pointed involved impoundment, the practice of a president declining to spend money Congress allocated. Congress banned it in 1974. This dispute runs the other direction: spending on something Congress never approved. Courts have historically been reluctant to referee spending disputes between the branches, preferring that Congress use its own tools, but Congress has been slow to use them.
Why it matters: If a project can be completed before a court decides whether it was lawful, the ruling becomes advisory. That is a structural problem larger than any one building.
What to watch: Whether the Court sets the case for full argument or lets the stay stand indefinitely, and whether Judge Leon's distinction between above-and below-ground work survives.