On August 31, 2026, the Supreme Court, 5-4, let the Trump administration keep building its ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing while the National Trust for Historic Preservation's lawsuit continues. The unsigned order stayed Judge Richard Leon's injunction, which had never taken effect, on the ground that the Trust likely lacks standing to sue. It did not decide whether the project is legal: “Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government's East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.”
The Trust relied on a member, Alison Hoagland, a preservationist who lives in Washington and visits the neighborhood about once a month, who said the ballroom's “scale,” “height,” and “massing” would injure her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests.” The majority: “we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III.” It added, “Perhaps nearly any government action or project offends someone's sensibilities.” It also credited the government's security case, citing the Secretary of the Army's statement that the ballroom's height and mass are “crucial” to shield the underground military installation “from kinetic impacts.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented: “The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place. Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year. That construction is likely unlawful.” Federal law bars any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress,” and, he wrote, “Congress has not passed any law resembling 'express authority'” for this one.
The administration pointed to an appropriation for Executive Residence upkeep. Roberts: “That appropriation of a couple million dollars for ordinary Executive Residence maintenance and repairs likely does not authorize the President to use hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to tear down the East Wing and construct a ballroom in its stead.” He ended: “Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers.”
The path to the Court: Leon's March 31 order allowed below-ground work on a military installation and blocked above-ground construction except as “strictly necessary” for security, and the D.C. Circuit paused it before it took effect. On August 7 the appeals court upheld it 2-1, writing that “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” and gave the government 14 days to seek relief. On August 21, the day the injunction would have taken effect, Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay.
The administration told the Court the project was “65% complete in its entirety,” and its filings described hundreds of workers spending “20 hours a day, 7 days a week” on it, CNN reported. The Trust argued the administration was trying to “outrun judicial review.” Trump posted that the Court “has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat.” The order did not decide the legal question, and the lawsuit continues in the lower courts.