A federal appeals court hearing over Trump's unauthorised White House ballroom produced one of the most extraordinary legal arguments in recent memory: that the president can destroy any national landmark and face no judicial accountability so long as the demolition happens fast enough.
On 5 June 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard oral arguments in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, the legal challenge to President Donald Trump's plan to demolish the White House East Wing and replace it with a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, a project costing an estimated £317 million ($400 million) and never approved by Congress.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth argued on behalf of the Justice Department that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to stop it. Three judges on the panel pushed back sharply, and the questions they asked exposed something far larger than a construction dispute.
'No Court Could Stop This': The DOJ's Position in Full
Roth opened his argument by challenging the standing of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to sue. According to ABC News, the DOJ lawyer argued the Trust's claim rested on the aesthetic grievances of a single board member, who alleged the ballroom would harm her 'use and enjoyment of President's Park.' That, Roth contended, was insufficient legal standing for a lawsuit of this scale.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, cut straight to the core of the matter. 'I'm asking you a straightforward question: That court, this court, the Supreme Court – no court could stop the building of this?' she asked. Roth answered, simply: 'Yes.' Millett pressed further – 'If this were complete lawlessness by the government, it couldn't be stopped?' Roth replied: 'On these theories, I think that's right.' He then told the court that only Congress, not the judiciary, could halt the project.
Millett then posed the hypothetical that has since drawn widespread attention. 'If the government decides very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors – that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast – nothing can be done?' she asked, according to Courthouse News Service.
Roth's position, as applied by the same legal logic, was that the injury would become 'non-redressable,' meaning once the damage was done, no lawsuit could proceed. The argument, stripped to its essence: speed is a loophole.
How a Ballroom Became a Test of Presidential Power
The case traces back to October 2025, when the Trump administration demolished the White House East Wing without first obtaining approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, the body that normally has jurisdiction over construction on government buildings. No environmental assessment was conducted and no congressional authorisation was sought. The National Trust filed its lawsuit in December 2025, two months after demolition began.
US District Judge Richard Leon ruled in late March 2026 that Trump had exceeded his authority. 'No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have,' Leon wrote in his ruling.
He stayed enforcement for 14 days to allow the DOJ to appeal. The DC Circuit administratively paused Leon's injunction on 17 April 2026, allowing construction to resume. By the time of the 5 June hearing, Roth told the court the site already held more than 3 million pounds of steel rebar.
The administration's legal justification rests on framing the ballroom as a national security structure. Government filings describe the project as a 'highly knitted, unified whole' incorporating a 'deeply ensconced bunker,' bomb shelters, medical facilities, a drone port and sniper nests atop the building. Roth argued this security framing granted the executive branch authority under existing statutes, a position the panel scrutinised directly.
Judges Question Whether the Statutes Even Authorise the DOJ's Claims
Biden appointee Judge Bradley Garcia focused on the specific legal text the DOJ cited to justify the construction. 'This cannot be a source of authority for demolishing and replacing part of the construction,' Garcia said, noting the relevant statute covers only maintenance of the White House. 'It does not say the president is authorised to make improvements.' Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, similarly flagged a gap in the DOJ's reasoning concerning the Office of the Executive Residence and what powers it actually confers.
Millett returned to the standing question with particular force. Roth had argued that the Trust filed too late, that demolition was already underway when the lawsuit was filed. Millett pointed out that the administration had itself indicated it would conduct a public comment period, which only began after the East Wing came down in October. Had the Trust sued in July 2025, the government would have argued the case was premature. 'So just move fast and break things, then nobody has standing,' Millett said. Roth had no adequate answer.
The ACLU of DC filed an amicus brief on 28 May 2026 in support of the Trust, arguing the DOJ was proposing an unprecedented and legally unsound standard for ultra vires claims, that is, actions by government officials that exceed their legal authority. Under established precedent dating back over a century, the ACLU argued, a plaintiff does not need to show a specific statutory prohibition was violated; they need only show the action was unauthorised by law.
