Trump Takes White House Ballroom Fight To Supreme Court
President Donald Trump has taken another major legal battle directly to the Supreme Court after suffering a setback that threatens to halt one of his most ambitious projects in Washington.
The administration is asking the justices to intervene quickly, with Chief Justice John Roberts now setting a deadline for the other side to respond.
At issue is Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom, with the administration asking the Supreme Court to allow aboveground construction to continue while it prepares a full appeal challenging a lower-court injunction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that the ballroom project lacked the necessary approval from Congress and upheld an order preventing aboveground construction from moving forward.
The appeals court nevertheless paused its ruling until Aug. 21, giving the Trump administration an opportunity to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
Roberts subsequently ordered the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit challenging the project, to respond to the administration’s request by Tuesday.
Trump demolished the White House’s historic East Wing last year to make way for the ballroom, which he has repeatedly described as “a gift” to the American people.
The administration has also increasingly emphasized national security in defending the project, arguing that the ballroom cannot be separated from a sophisticated security structure being constructed underneath it.
While the lower courts blocked aboveground ballroom construction without congressional authorization, they have allowed work on the underground security structure to continue.
The administration argues that separating the two portions of the project misunderstands how the facility was designed.
“Every part” of the construction is “an integrated whole geared toward remedying security deficiencies and bringing critical improvements to the White House,” the government argued.
“The entire ballroom structure is designed to shield the military installation beneath it,” Sauer wrote.
Trump’s lawyers are therefore asking the justices to freeze the appeals court decision while the administration pursues a full appeal.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is urging the Supreme Court to reject that request and prevent the administration from continuing aboveground construction.
“The administration brazenly asserted to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that even if Ballroom construction were unlawful, not even the supreme court had authority to stop it,” the organization said Friday.
“The administration’s transparent efforts to evade the rule of law, frustrate judicial review, and limit the availability of meaningful relief in the courts must stop here,” the group continued.
“The supreme court should deny the administration’s demand that it be allowed to continue ballroom construction while it appeals,” the National Trust added.
The dispute presents another test of the limits of presidential authority, with the lower courts concluding that Trump cannot undertake the aboveground portion of the project without congressional approval.
The administration contends that Congress has already granted the executive branch sufficient authority to secure and maintain the White House complex and that the judiciary is improperly interfering with those powers.
The ballroom dispute also reaches the Supreme Court during a busy period of emergency litigation involving the administration.
Trump’s Justice Department has turned to the justices in several disputes after lower courts temporarily blocked administration policies, including separate litigation involving efforts to restrict mail-in voting.
For the ballroom project, however, the clock is particularly important because the appeals court’s temporary pause expires Aug. 21, The Guardian reported.
That means the Supreme Court could soon determine whether construction remains frozen while the larger constitutional and statutory battle plays out or whether Trump can resume aboveground work as his administration pursues its appeal.
BREAKING: Dolly Parton’s Cause Of Death Revealed: ‘Brief Battle’
Dolly Parton’s death came after a brief battle with cancer, her representatives revealed Tuesday.
The country music legend died Aug. 25 at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. She was 80.
Parton had been admitted to the cancer center Friday, four days before her death. Her representatives confirmed the cancer diagnosis in a statement to PEOPLE but did not disclose what type she had.
“Our beloved Dolly Parton spent her life and career bringing joy, laughter, hope and integrity into everything she touched. Her unmatched generosity reached the lives of countless people whom she would never meet, yet she was always there to offer a helping hand,” the statement read.
“Whether it be the hundreds of millions of books donated through her invaluable Imagination Library or funding research that helped create a lifesaving vaccine used around the world, Dolly’s unconditional love for all people was the guiding force for her lasting impact. After bravely facing a brief battle with cancer, Dolly departed her Earthly life today at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center surrounded by loved ones,” the statement concluded.
The “Jolene” singer had also been dealing with kidney and autoimmune issues before her death, PEOPLE previously reported.
Just days earlier, Dolly Parton opened up about her declining health and acknowledged that she had put off addressing some medical issues while caring for her husband, Carl.
“As I’ve shared in video messages throughout the past year, I am dealing with some health issues that I just didn’t pay attention to when I was watching over [my husband] Carl. You know, this isn’t the first time I’ve had to manage something like this. Back in the early ’80s, I was down for several months with female issues, and I was struggling with my weight at the time too, so it’s not like I haven’t been through hard times with my health,” Parton told PEOPLE.
Her nephew, Bryan Seaver, announced her death in an Instagram video Tuesday on behalf of the Parton and Owens family.
“My name is Bryan Seaver, son of Cassie Parton, and I’m representing the Parton and Owens family today announcing the passing of my aunt, Dolly Rebecca Parton Dean, Sister, Sis and Granny to one generation and Gigi to the next,” he says in the video.
Seaver, who served as Parton’s head of security for more than two decades, said she had asked him years earlier to deliver the announcement.
“This video announcement is something Dolly asked of me years ago, before I fully absorbed it as a future reality,” he continued. “As her head of security for more than two decades, a role my father Larry held before me, I have imagined the heaviness of this moment but haven’t truly felt it until now.”
Seaver said the moment brought immense pride and heartbreak, but he took comfort in his faith that Parton had been reunited with Carl and other loved ones.
Seaver added: “It is an honor, an honor that is mixed with absolute pride and great sadness. But sadness lies with us, not with Dolly. Dolly has lived in the light and is in the arms of Jesus, surely met by Carl, her parents and countless othe
Shocking 'truth' behind Prince Harry's decision to quit major role
Prince Harry should have "resigned in disgrace" from the board of a controversial African wildlife charity, a commentator says. James Walker makes the bombshell remark in Wednesday's episode of this publication's podcast, Daily Expresso.
He and the show's host, JJ Anisiobi, delve into the Duke of Sussex's dramatic decision to step down from African Parks. James, commenting on the controversy, said: "When you hear about this stuff and how long it's been going on for, you should be resigning in disgrace. [Harry] should be saying: 'I'm not touching that with a barge pole. That is a failed entity. We're going nowhere near it'.
"But no. He's still saying he's going to 'support their mission'. And again this Caroline Pearce, executive director of Survival International, goes on to say: 'His departure doesn't undo that record'.
"She alleged that African Parks was aware of the abuses for years, but it was only after Survival complained to Harry that the charity finally commissioned an investigation."
James added: "Well, she's got a point."
It emerged on Monday (August 24) that Harry was no longer a board member of the wildlife charity.
The conservation organisation has admitted that human rights abuses were committed by its rangers against members of the semi-nomadic Baka group in Congo-Brazzaville.
African Parks has said since that it has improved its safeguarding processes both in the Odzala-Kokoua National Park and institutionally.
Its admission followed an independent human rights investigation into allegations guards managed and paid by the charity had beaten, raped and tortured indigenous people in Odzala-Kokoua National Park.
Harry was president of the charity for six years before he became a member of its board of directors in 2023.
A spokesman for the Duke said he remains an active and avid supporter of African Parks. He added: "The Duke is proud of his 10 years with African Parks and fully supports the ongoing strengthening of its board.
"His commitment to conservation in Africa continues and he remains a supporter of African Parks’ mission."
Human rights organisation, Survival International, said it had been calling on Harry to step down from African Parks for years.
The group's director, Caroline Pearce, said in a statement: "It’s outrageous that for 10 years Prince Harry has served African Parks while the organisation has been responsible for abuse and violence against Indigenous people.
"His departure doesn't undo that record — African Parks itself must now be held accountable, and must abandon this model of fortress conservation for good."
Survival International said indigenous peoples know how best to manage their land and the idea outsiders know better is racist and colonial.
