The underlying dispute involves the National Trust for Historic Preservation's challenge to construction of a ballroom on White House grounds at the former site of the East Wing. On March 31, 2026, Judge Richard J. Leon granted the National Trust's motion for a preliminary injunction, halting the project as ultra vires — meaning undertaken without statutory authorization — while carving out a safety-and-security exception for actions strictly necessary to protect the White House, its grounds, and the personal safety of the President and his staff.
The government argued that the entire ballroom project — above ground and below — qualifies as a national security imperative and may proceed unabated. The court rejected that reading as neither reasonable nor correct, noting that it directly contradicted the government's own prior representations that the below-surface work was driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction.
The court's amended order permits below-ground construction, including what the government described as top-secret excavations, bunkers, bomb-shelters, protective partitioning, military installations, and hospital and medical facilities, along with above-ground construction strictly necessary to cover, secure, and protect those underground elements. The order also permits temporary security measures already in place for presidential protection, waterproofing, water management, and resolving construction risks such as uncovered rebar and exposed cables around the site. What it does not permit is above-ground construction of the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
The court was unpersuaded by the government's argument that security features planned for the ballroom — including missile-resistant steel columns and beams, drone-proof roofing, and bullet- and blast-proof glass windows — bring the structure within the security exception. The D.C. Circuit had already noted that those features are still months, if not years, away from being realized, and the government acknowledged the project is expected to take another two years until completion.
The court also addressed the government's invocation of national security as a shield against judicial review, citing precedent from the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court for the proposition that judicial deference to national security claims is not the same as withholding judicial review altogether. The court reviewed four classified ex parte declarations submitted by the government and concluded they shed no further light on whether above-ground ballroom construction is necessary for national security.
The court granted the National Trust's motion to clarify and granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to extend the administrative stay, extending the stay by seven days from issuance of the amended order. The court warned that any above-ground construction during that period not in compliance with the amended order is at risk of being taken down pending resolution of the case.