Ballroom Blitz: Judge Orders Halt to Construction, Trump Not Amused
“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!”
The corruption of the federal judiciary reared its ugly head again on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered the Trump administration to halt construction of the White House ballroom project until it seeks and is granted congressional approval.
Leon’s ruling states: “I must therefore GRANT the National Trust’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.”
According to the Associated Press, Judge Leon:
[G]ranted a preservationist group’s request for a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project. He concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”
Leon began his ruling by stating: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!”
Recognizing that this case “raises novel and weighty issues” and that “halting an ongoing construction project may raise logistical issues,” Leon suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days.
[This period coincides with the planned start of “above ground construction.”]
Given that a portion of the East Wing of the White House was demolished in October in preparation for the ballroom, and that preliminary construction, “footings and below-grade structural concrete,” began in February, it seems an odd time to be slamming the brakes on the project.
The Trump administration immediately filed a notice to appeal. Asked about the ruling in a Tuesday afternoon Oval Office press conference, Trump replied, “We built many things at the White House over the years. They don’t get congressional approval.”
In a scathing — and lengthy — Truth Social post, Trump called the National Trust “a Radical Left Group of Lunatics whose funding was stopped by Congress in 2005.”
[Politico fact checked this claim and found that “Congress stopped providing for the organization in 2005, and the group has since been largely privately funded.”]
In a later post, Trump wrote:
In the Ballroom case, the Judge said we have to get Congressional approval. He is WRONG! Congressional approval has never been given on anything, in these circumstances, big or small, having to do with construction at the White House. In this case, even less so, because the Ballroom is being built with Private Donations, no Federal Taxpayer Money! President DONALD J. TRUMP
The National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to convene on Thursday and is expected to approve the White House ballroom construction project, according to the Associated Press. Stephen Staudigl, a spokesperson for the commission, said “the judge’s ruling does not affect the schedule for Thursday.”
Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (the group that filed the lawsuit), was delighted with Leon’s ruling. She issued a statement that read:
We are pleased with Judge Leon’s ruling today to order a halt to any further ballroom construction until the Administration complies with the law and obtains express authorization to go forward.”
This is a win for the American people on a project that forever impacts one of the most beloved and iconic places in our nation. The group had sued in hopes of obtaining an order pausing the ballroom project until it undergoes multiple independent reviews and receives congressional approval.
Notably, Leon’s ruling exempts “any construction work that’s necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.” Leon said he “reviewed material that the government privately submitted to him before concluding that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security.”
Simply put, like so many of the injunctions issued by federal judges and intended to thwart the Trump administration’s agenda, Leon’s injunction is a temporary legal obstacle, rather than a kill shot for the ballroom project.
Although I could be very wrong, I see it as a nuisance that must be dealt with rather than a fatal blow. It halts construction for now while the case brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation proceeds. It signals the judge thinks the plaintiffs have a credible legal argument worth fully considering.
[As Trump revealed on Sunday, the plans call for a “massive military complex” to be built beneath the ballroom. I reported on this story here.]
And while this would mark the most radical change any president has made to the White House, the case for a proper ballroom is undeniable. The temporary tents that are erected for large events are an inconvenient and unsightly workaround that fall well short of the setting.
In the end, this is less about a ballroom than it is about power — who wields it, and who gets to obstruct it. The injunction may slow the project, but it’s unlikely to stop it. If anything, it underscores how readily the courts are being used to challenge presidential authority at every turn. Whether the ballroom rises or not, this clash is just one more chapter in a broader struggle that is unlikely to end anytime soon.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Why would he be amused? Demolition has already taken place and the pit has been dug. This is a last ditch effort to halt the project. Pathetic hateful SOBs. The judge needs to be halted is what.
You and five other people don’t understand the figure of speech “…was not amused”?
I looked at this judge’s history briefly. He is all over the map.
I think this is silly. What are they going to do – build the demolished wing back or leave it as is.
Precedence says congressional input is not needed unless funds are required. They’re not here.
There is also the plans for the new military communication center. Stopping the building stops those plans and arguably that interferes with national (future) security.
With all due respect, how do you get around 40 USC 8106 which states:
A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.
Are you saying that the White House is not part of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia? If it is, doesn’t the President need approval of Congress?
Also, how do you ignore 3 U.S.C. § 105, which states:
“There are authorized to be appropriated each fiscal year to the President such sums as may be necessary for[] (1) the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.”
Congress authorized over $2 million to meet the appropriation. A $400 million addition is far beyond that appropriation.
So where is Trump’s authority to tear down a portion of the White House and build onto it without Congressional approval and appropriation?
(Even if one were to say that Congress could allow the donations for the building, does Trump have that agreement in hand?)
3 U.S.C. § 105 supports the argument for the President. It AUTHORIZES Presidents to make renovations on an ongoing basis. And, of course, the plaintiff here has NO standing to seek an injunction anyway.
The building wing already existed, it is being remodeled and expanded from the ground up because the old one was a mess, seriously out of date, and too ‘tight’. Congress does not get a say in this matter, and besides, if they wanted a say why then did they not step up and say something beforehand, it wasn’t like PDJT was doing this in secret.
No, the wing is not being remodeled or expanded. It was torn down and is being replaced.
Not that that makes any difference, until someone with standing shows a statute saying that he needs Congress’s permission.
However if there’s some statute saying that Congress’s permission is needed, then it’s stupid to ask “why did it not say something beforehand”? Congress is not one person; it’s a set of two bodies both of which are hard to get to do anything, so you can’t expect it to react to a situation. If he needs its permission then the onus is on him to obtain it, and it doesn’t need to do anything. Inaction means no permit. But first show that a permit is needed.
” the wing is not being remodeled or expanded. It was torn down and is being replaced.”
Which is common when remodeling or expanding. Actually, my bad, that’s wrong. It’s VERY common.
Grok:
“it is very common to perform some level of “tearing down” during a remodel, though the scale can range from removing a single wall to a full structural demolition.”
/responding to Milhouse below, here to avoid the nesting
Grok:
it is very common to perform some level of “tearing down” during a remodel, though the scale can range from removing a single wall to a full structural demolition.
“Congress authorized over $2 million to meet the appropriation. A $400 million addition is far beyond that appropriation.”
As repeatedly noted, the $400 million is not appropriated. It applies to the rest of the building.
No, but it isn’t a reservation, park, or public ground.
I don’t understand what point you’re making. Congress appropriated $2M for maintenance. If the president wants to spend more than that from the treasury he needs Congress’s approval. But he isn’t. The $400M isn’t coming from the treasury, so how is it Congress’s concern?
What statute says he doesn’t have that authority? If Trump had no authority to tear the East Wing down, what authority did either of the Roosevelts have to build it in the first place?
Why would he need its agreement?
But the big ugly problem with this order is that the plaintiff in this case has no standing. It is simply none of Carol Quillen’s flaming business what Trump does with the White House.
What a hateful bunch are these loons with TDS!
President Trump does not need approval from congress except for some Executive appointments,
40 USC 8101 appears to disagree with you.
40 USC 8106. Buildings on reservations, parks, or public grounds
A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.
Well technically it is a renovation and not something new. What do the statues cover. Have they ever been used before. When were they inacted.
Razing a building to the ground and erecting a new building with a new design is not a renovation.
The statutes was passed in 1810, and has been updated several times – the last being in 2002.
Wait just a second or two. Trump has been around these blocks a few times. I wonder if – maybe – he had them leave one or two beams or joists or some other construction thing in place and will incorporate them into the replacement structure? This would then be “remodeling”, or “refurbishment”.
This is how folks in Portland Oregon get around the asbestos siding disposal issue on older homes over in the Sellwood District. Take off the siding, start remodeling and refurbishment, never tearing down the entire thing. Keep remodeling and refurbishing to the point where all that is left of the original is ONE little corner support and the address numbers. Not a demolition.
Thanks. Do you know if they have ever been applied in a case?
In Portland, of all places, it is as long as an 8ft long section of original wall remains.
Every place I have ever lived in and helped people with permitting processes for “renovation / refurbishment” vs. “rebuild” has been based on a percentage of the replaced structure.
Even so, I am not sure that in this case that matters. Trump himself has said he is going to build a new East Wing.
I am just having problems getting around the fact that the law appears to say that he needed Congressional approval.
I am not sure he would have ever gotten permission from a Democrat controlled Congress, but the fact is he never asked. Maybe he is working from the supposition that it is “easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.”
Nope “gitarcarver,” this litigation is meritless. Among other reasons, 40 USC 1801 has NO application here. Congress has recognized the President’s singular control of the White House as his residence and has specifically authorized the President to alter and improve the White House under 3 U.S.C. § 105, overriding other laws.. Presidents have been making improvements and renovations for 200 years.
In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt built the West Wing — replacing expansive greenhouses constructed during the Jefferson Administration and establishing the modern day executive office wing with a “classically leaning design” — along with a colonial garden and East Terrace, which eventually became the East Wing.
In 1909, President William Howard Taft remodeled and expanded the West Wing, which included construction of the first Oval Office.
In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson demolished the colonial garden, modernizing it with a rose garden.
In 1927, President Calvin Coolidge oversaw the renovation of the upper floors and attic of the White House.
In 1929, President Herbert Hoover remodeled the West Wing, including reconstruction work in the basement level and remodeling the first floor; after a fire on Christmas Eve, the West Wing was repaired and reopened in 1930.
In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt overhauled the West Wing, adding a second floor, a larger basement, and a swimming pool, and relocating the Oval Office to its current location;
in 1942, President Roosevelt constructed the East Wing.
In 1948, President Harry Truman undertook a “total reconstruction” of the White House’s interior, expanding its foundation and footprint — preserving only its exterior walls.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy constructed the modern Rose Garden.
In 1970, President Nixon converted the swimming pool into the press briefing room; in 1973, he added a bowling alley in the basement.
In 1975, President Gerald Ford installed an outdoor swimming pool on the South Grounds, financed entirely by private donations.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton undertook a restoration and refurbishment of the Executive Mansion.
In 2009, President Barack Obama resurfaced the south-grounds tennis court into a basketball court and added the White House Kitchen Garden on the South Lawn.
In 2020, President Trump and the First Lady completed a new White House tennis pavilion, refurbishing the White House Tennis Court and Grandchildren’s Garden, as well as constructing a new building.
There is precedent of sorts. Many decades ago, the U.S. Navy got Congress to approve funds for a “refit” of three ships. That refit consisted of building entirely new ships and assigning them the names and hull numbers of the old ships.
They took down the East Wing, a section or “wing” if you will of the WH, not the entire structure.
The whole White house wasn’t razed to the ground. A wing of a building is still part of the building.
No, it isn’t. Or wasn’t. The East Wing was a completely separate building. Which no longer exists. The White House itself was not touched, exactly as Trump promised. As far as I know the new ballroom will also be a separate building.
That depends on whether the ballroom site is considered “public grounds.” Reading the part you provided I believe the section is referencing three areas (for lack of a better word) that have a core similarity. To me that similarity would be open spaces used by the public. The next thing that comes to mind is whether a building or structure on site could fundamentally alter the purpose of such a site. In the case of reservations, parks, or public grounds the answer could very well be yes. To what extent can only be determined through examination by a body having jurisdiction. Which would be Congress.
Trump’s ballroom certainly is not similar to an open space used by the public freely. It’s construction does not fundamentally alter the purpose of its site. My conclusion would be that does not apply.
I don’t know if the judge’s ruling was based on that, I don’t think it was. I think it was a question of historic nature of the building. I could of course be wrong.
In that the President does not own the property, it would seem that the White House is on “public grounds.”
The judge also cites another law where a building in DC must get approval.
I suggest you do try to go about freely on the White House grounds as you would a walk in the park. I think you will find they are not public grounds as referenced in the code you cited.
Correct! It is a remodel.
D.C. has a city law that usurps the power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government?
Have I got a permit for bridge construction to sell you!
A “public ground” does not mean any property that belongs to the public. A government office block belongs to the public but is not a public ground. Most government property is neither a reservation, nor a park, nor yet a public ground.
Dr Dave: No, it is not a remodel. An entire building was completely demolished, and is being replaced.
Hodge: Who said anything about a Washington city law? We are dealing only with federal laws here.
Too many lawyers trying to parse terms in order to ‘make sure’ PDJT is in compliance, real or perceived. Hodge, above, lays it out, and that provide rational precedent for PDJT to do what he is doing…with private funding.
The White House, the US Capital, and the Supreme Court building – and their grounds, are exempt by law from regulations that apply to the construction and renovation of federal buildings generally.
The laws you cite note that they do not apply to these buildings, stating, “…except those buildings and grounds which otherwise are provided for by law.”
The President has control of the WH and its grounds., Congress controls the Capital and its grounds, and the Supreme Court controls its building and grounds.
As noted above, throughout our history, Presidents have only ever gone to Congress if they need funding for the new buildings they are putting up, or the renovations they wish to do on existing buildings.
This “judge” is wrong on black letter law. He is also wrong on the history.
They should toss him in the hole and put up the new East Wing on top of him. I’m sure a lovely sealed room for him could be installed in the bunker underneath it, with a chute to drop food in from time to time.
Do you have any law that supports that contention?
The President is responsible for the maintenance of the White House and grounds as per the law. He is given an appropriation by Congress for that specific purpose.
That law also requires the President to seek an appropriation if he is erecting a new building on the grounds. Whether he can use donations or has to use Congressional funds is not being discussed.
The issue is whether a President can do what he wants even is that is against the stated law.
“The White House is expressly exempt from key historic preservation regulations under Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), specifically 54 U.S.C. § 307104, which allows the President to avoid Section 106 review processes for renovations, demolition, or construction, such as the East Wing ballroom project.”
Quite simply, 54 U.S.C. § 307104 is a “Hands off our area” law designed so the various branches of the government could not interfere with each other’s operations, like the President deciding on a whim to tear down the Supreme Court building, or Congress deciding to turn the White House into low-income housing. And yet this judge goes plowing through the law like a bulldozer. Expect the appeals court to smack him down solid and force him to write this on the blackboard a hundred times.
Nothing in this division applies to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.
Capitol, not capital. The US capital is Washington, and it is certainly not exempt from regulations, nor does Congress control it in the sense you mean here.
“Capital” is a common noun; it refers to a kind of city. There are many capitals in the world. There is no such word as “capitol”; rather “the Capitol” is the name of a specific building, just like “the White House”, or “Buckingham Palace”.
No it would be a gross abuse of judicial authority and a violation of executive discretion here to construe the President’s renovation of the White House ballroom as erecting a building on a park or public ground within the meaning of this statute. And, equally important, the private parties in this litigation have no standing to enjoin this work. In other words, there is no basis to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. For those in Rio Linda, the federal judge has NO power here. He is grossly overstepping his authority.
I wouldn’t say the judge has no authority here. If a plaintiff with standing could be found and were to come before the judge, he probably would have the authority to make this injunction. But the key point is that judges have no authority to do anything without a plaintiff with standing. That’s the main restraint on judicial power; until someone with standing brings a complaint to them they must sit on their hands and do nothing.
A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.
Why do you think the White House is a reservation, park, or public ground?
Trump and the Republicans should use this to once again highlight the lunacy of the Left.
Why is the writer saying this is the most “radical change of any president”? I would say FDR putting a bunker in, to begin with and then expanding the east entryway into the east wing, to cover the bunker, is just as radical. Trump is expanding on the bunker already there. Although, the ballroom will be amazing… And needed! JKF had intended on building one but, of course, was killed before he was able to do it. Today’s Democrat party would have taken him to court too. No way would they accept him into their party today… not would he want to be!
“…And while this would mark the most radical change any president has made to the White House,” As stated, and was going to point out the fallacy in the writers comment. Ever see pictures of Trumans ‘renovation’…gutted back to the exterior walls…and having done historic restorations, that was, shall we say, excessive but necessary in order to preserve the original while allowing future plans and renovations.
Lunacy in so many ways: they prefer to host dignitaries in tents on the lawn with fancy porta-potties, but porta-potties nonetheless, for the comfort of their guests. Patently absurd.
“And while this would mark the most radical change any president has made to the White House.”
That distinction goes to Harry S Truman who decided to gut the White House proper after Margaret’s piano fell through the floor.
Since the East Wing was built in 1942, I wonder if there’s precedent for the argument the judge has made? Did FDR get congressional approval to erect the recently demolished East Wing?
In any case, I see this injunction as being sound and fury. If Trump wanted to he could wrap the two projects together and use pentagon funds.
You know Trump, he doesn’t take no for an answer.
Put the judge on ignore. These people are nuts.
if only Trump had the balls
Well if he needs a dick, is it alright if the calls on you?
The President (any President) has a budget for the upkeep of the physical White House. When the piano fell through the floor, Truman went back to Congress to have the budget increased to make the repairs to a failing structure.
The East Wing was originally proposed and build under Teddy Roosevelt. To do so, he appealed to Congress for approval and funding.
Wilson expanded the East Wing with Congressional approval and funding.
The East Wing as built by FDR was also approved by Congress and funded by Congress.
Even Jacqueline Kennedy sought funds through Congress in her renovation of the White House. The changes had to be approved by Congress.
As much as I think there is great TDS in this country, Trump may have overstepped his authority in this case.
The law seems to indicate that he needed Congressional approval for the demolition and new building.
If he was spending congressional controlled funds for the project THEN I believe he would need explicit congressional approval. The ballroom rebuild / renovation doesn’t, it’s privately raised funds.
It’s muddied up a bit because the project also includes underground construction for a military grade installation – but that’s IA being paid from the military budget and arguably a separate issue. The president has full authority to direct reallocation of parts of the military budget as necessary – and in any case there’s no Historic preservation” interest in “preserving” any outdated and invisible military bunkers under the White House.
The problem is that is not the way the law reads. If a President wants to build something, he has to get Congressional approval according to the laws.
Imagine if you will that a President, before leaving office, wants to construct a monstrosity like the Obama Presidential library. He does so with donations. Does the next President have to just live with that building? If he wants it torn down, does he have to do so through donations? Tax dollars?
Where does it end?
The 1942 renovation included a military bunker for the President, his family and others as well. I am not sure that the “military” part matters. However, even assuming it does, wouldn’t the purchase of the military equipment have to go out for bid? Would a defense contractor selling equipment out of a bidding process, and to a private entity be an issue?
If no money is needed to be allocated to the project, congressional “approval” could be simply a letter from Johnson and Thune stating that they approve. That would really set off the left.
Only if it’s on a reservation, park, or public ground. The White House is none of those things.
Nope. Neither Johnson nor Thune are Congress. If Congressional approval is needed then a resolution must be passed by both houses and signed by the president. But I have yet to see the statute requiring such approval.
Just said the same before scrolling to your comment. Exactly.
I don’t see how the group had standing, or why, as demolition was complete and construction begun, the issue was declared moot.
How much of this group is just a number of very wealthy AWFLs? Asking for a friend because it sounds like, looks like their kind of activity.
It has no standing. The plaintiff’s claim is simply that she might one day decide to walk past the White House and would be harmed by having to see a new building there that doesn’t appeal to her heightened artistic senses. I kid you not. That the judge gave her the time of day is outrageous.
I think that anybody walking down the street who sees a new wing on the White House and has some sort of fit, should be placed in a comfortable institution with soft walls and compassionate people to visit and offer gentle words.
Black robed lawyers who micro-manage every aspect of the executive branch is exactly what the founders envioned 250 years ago after winning a bloody, costly, protracted war with Great Britian.
Yes, sir. Exactly.
The law is that the President gets a “budget” via an appropriation from Congress for the maintenance of the White House. (This year the appropriation was over $2 million dollars.) What the President does with that money is somewhat his discretion as long as it goes to building maintenance. So no, “black robed lawyers” are not “micro-managing” this part of the Executive Branch.
But 40 USC 8106 says that Congress has to approve construction on any Federal grounds. While I agree the East Wing needed to be expanded and made a “proper” area for functions, it seems that the plans would still need Congressional approval.
Did the President get that approval?
Did congress say anything in the matter beforehand? No. Did not care, maybe because they correctly know they have no say in the matter., therefore the point is moot. But judges and lawyers love their little bit of overblown perceived power, even if massively after the fact.
But 40 USC 8106 says that Congress has to approve construction on any Federal grounds.
That is not what it reads at all. Statutory language should be precise for a reason. All sorts of unintended consequences happen when it is not. Fortunately this code is exact. It limits its subject to
“…any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia…” That is not the same thing as any Federal grounds. It is concerned only with construction in federally owned reservations, park, or public grounds. Think open space freely used by the public for their own pleasure. Space owned and managed by the federal government (or private contractor) for that purpose.
Construction on such open space is at odds with its intended purpose and could alter how the public accesses and enjoys that space. Congress did not want that to happen. Which is why there is a U.S. code addressing the matter.
Consider that the “approval” per se, is the appropriations. That is the actual control point for Congress. As noted above, a simple note from Thune and Johnson may suffice for that function since funding is unnecessary.
But then, I am not on the road of destruction for the president based on TDS…
No, if approval is needed it would have to come from a resolution passed by both houses and signed by the president. But as far as I know no approval is needed.
While I hate the lawfare and kangaroo court status we are currently playing through, this is something Conservatives had better get good at.
Ann Coulter noted recently on prior presidential actions to investigate voter fraud were met with rampant lawfare. The left is quite good at it. Look at what they did to Gov Palin. Conservatives SUCK at this game.
1- The left files 1000 lawsuits with a loss ratio of 999:1… though now they seem to have perverted the judiciary to be batting 500. they weren’t phased on the 999 losses. The process was half the victory. Where the hell have conservatives been at mosquito biting the left?
2- The left has perverted tons of public money fund their legal armies. This is all done with either state, or federal or NGO money. The right has jack squat.
3- The left has infiltrated the judiciary with great success. I thought the 9th circus was the big one and Trump 1.0 and made great gains with both this circuit and Cocaine Mitch in appointed vacancies. But clearly the left has so many storm trooper despots in robes that its hard for the layman to not think the country is doomed.
4- The left did not get this control over night. This was decades in the making. Right under the noses of GOP swamp creatures. No one on the right is taking action on countering their decades long perversion.
Someone had better step up and either fight them with 3D chess (cutting their funding) or head on with massive counter cash. Cuz another decade of this and we are toast under a weaker POTUS.
This must be put into some perspective. Federal judiciary oversight over the President’s management of the White House, and the right of any private parties to raise objections to planned renovations, are only temporary judicial powers that expire I think on Jan. 20 2029.
Although it must be noted that no one will ever be able to question the fed chair’s, shall we say, excessive renovation project costs. Not too sure why but that seems to be a permanent rule.
Ignore, no authority. Congress only has a say if money is spent and not spending government money
How do you get around this:
40 USC 8106. Buildings on reservations, parks, or public grounds
A building or structure shall not be erected on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.
There is no mention of funds.
Fine, leave a big ass hole on the property then. Fuck that judge
Exactly, beyond asinine at this point.
I would name the hole after the judge too…seems apropos.
It’s not “public grounds”. If you think it is, try going for a walk on the lawn.
I don’t have to. The government may restrict the use of public grounds.
There is a difference between “public use” and “public grounds.”
There literally is not. They are synonyms in the eye of the law.
You have really convinced yourself
Why don’t you give up?
The White House is none of those things.
“…the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.”
Why not interpret the ruling like a lefty would? Keep building right up to the last nail, then ask Congress to authorize a hammer.
They will do that as the underground security building is slowed to continue. The ballroom itself, I’m assuming, wouldn’t be able to begin until the underground parts are completed anyway??
Allowed to continue!! Not SLOWED! 🙄
Do we have a definition of “it”?
What part of “must stop” is unclear to you? Until Congress authorizes the hammer to bang in that last nail, nothing more may be done.
That is, assuming the injunction is valid in the first place, which I don’t think it is.
Leon’s ruling exempts “any construction work that’s necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.” That leaves a loophole the size of…a ballroom. Well, a bunker, which is the part being constructed right now. It is obviously not ‘secure’ to leave an open construction area in place for any kind of extended period next to the Executive. To at least appear to be following the demand…I mean order, the orange barrels need to be shifted around, some Executive Office employee needs to ‘evaluate’ the construction area for a few weeks in order to determine what actions need to be taken, and a report written after sufficient ‘buy-in’ by a few dozen agency heads. Should be ready by August or so, by which time the appeals court will have steamrolled this nitwit.
Perhaps the construction project should be recharacterized as something other than a ballroom. Then it is no longer a ballroom construction project.
It now identifies as a meeting room, and if you object, you’re a buildest.
Don’t listen President Trump enough of this TDS crap
So a judge found the deed to the property
Getting tired of these Commassar Judges
So if judges can now rule on White House building revisions then by default they can decide on furniture placement in all federal buildings including the White House
Did Trump get permission from Congress to remodel the Kennedy Center? Did Mike Obama get permission to redo the Rose Garden? Did removing the bowling alley and installing a basketball court from the WH require Congressional approval?
The President has the right to do renovations, repairs, etc., within a Congressional appropriation. But the Kennedy Center is not the same as the East Wing as the Kennedy Center was not razed and completely different building of a completely different design erect. Apples and oranges.
Yes. The design was submitted to a Congressional established board to approve the design as per the law.
As I remember he got approval even though some said he did not need to as it was considered new construction.
Once again, that is not the same as razing the East Wing to the ground and then replacing it with a different building of different size and different design.
Under the law, it appears a President has to get Congressional approval to do that type of work.
Don’t care, like most Americans who think rationally and not like a lawyer trying to inject themselves into something already underway in order to make some asinine point.
I think asinine points are the only true congressional approval process…
While TSA agents are guaranteed back pay after a government shutdown ends, construction workers on federal contracts do not have the same safety net.
Unlike salaried government employees, most construction workers are paid hourly and only for work actually performed. So this makes a court-ordered stoppage especially difficult for the workers.
Highly specialized crews like those that needed for a $400 million project don’t just sit around in a hotel waiting for a court’s ruling of the day. If the 14-day window expires and the D.C. Circuit doesn’t grant a stay, these workers will be demobilized and sent to other projects in other states.
My understanding is that Trump is using private funds. Is this not the case for paying the construction workers?
Private funds not needing congressional approval so the contracts continue to be paid.
I don’t think the decision is enforceable. The judge can’t arrest anyone and the executive is not going to arrest itself. The judge can issue fines against the executive, which the executive won’t pay. And Trump is using private funds to build the new structure—so he doesn’t need a Congressional allocation. Congress could cut off other funding as leverage. But it won’t.
Courts have the inherent power to enforce contempt actions themselves. If the executive refuses to prosecute, the court can hire a lawyer to handle the prosecution and proceed on its own.
I have to repost this
be amused by this!!!
kentajiiii on the loose
are you kidding me
this mighttt be the most dumbest mutterist fooken thing ever
she claims b/c you count on the police to arrest this person you’re as good as a citizen!!!
I was thinking about this and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have — you obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you’re from, that’s what everyone recognizes,” Jackson said. “But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign.”
She continued:
And I was thinking, I, U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan and what it means is that, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance meaning, can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to under Japanese law go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship, even though I’m a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.
from breit
https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2026/04/01/justice-jackson-suggests-foreign-tourists-qualify-birthright-citizenship-because-they-have-local-allegiance-us-while-vacation/
She’s about as intelligent as a brick, and that’s being kind! 🤣
What she doesn’t want to understand is that these people are in the country unlawfully and are therefore not in allegiance with the country they are in unlawfully.
Doesn’t really seem to be rocket science does it?
this /she has to rank as one of the dumbest justices in the history of….anywheres
planetary or otherwise
scotty set your phasers to double stun
I have some ACME brinks that are offended by that!
Every nasty thing the left said, and continues to say, about Justice Thomas actually came true in Brown.
It’s like pre-projection.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re here lawfully or unlawfully, they are still under US jurisdiction and owe the US temporary allegiance. If they commit a crime they can be arrested, and if a crime is committed against them the person who committed it is arrested.
Those who are males between 18 and 26 are required to register for Selective Service; whether they do it or not, the law requires it of them. And back when we had conscription illegal aliens were subject to it, just like legal aliens.
Um, she’s 100% correct in what she says. A person who is in a country owes it temporary allegiance for as long as he is there. No one disputes that.
Getting the Blue states congressional to go along with anything President Trump wants is impossible.
The thing that bothers me about this case is that EVERYONE agrees a permanent ballroom/function centre is really really needed buuuut because it’s Trump it HAS to be resisted for no other reason than rESiStaNcE!
The judge should have chucked the case because there is no good reason for it to be going ahead other than deliberate interference with the Administration going about its lawful duties and improving the facilities at the WH.
100%
The judge has exceeded his authority. State that, and ignore or impeach him.
If you ignore him he will hold you in contempt and send US marshals to arrest you. If your US Attorney refuses to prosecute you, he will exercise his own inherent authority to enforce his orders, and hire a private attorney to prosecute you for contempt.
Even an unconstitutional court order must be obeyed until a higher court overturns it.
And impeachment requires a majority of the house and two thirds of the senate (and the president has no role whatsoever), as well as an allegation of bad conduct, rather than merely a decision congress doesn’t like.
If a judge really does act ultra vires, i..e issues an order that is not merely wrong but that he simply has no authority to issue under any circumstances, then yes, do ignore it, but prepare to fight his inevitable contempt order in court.
Leave a Comment