A federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily extended a pause in a lower court order blocking construction of a controversial ballroom project at the White House, while sending the case back for further review.
In an unsigned order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit extended an administrative stay of a preliminary injunction until April 17, giving the government time to seek potential Supreme Court intervention and allowing a district court to clarify key factual disputes.
The dispute centers on a plan announced by President Donald Trump in July 2025 to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the East Wing, funded by private donors.
Despite assurances that historic preservation concerns would be addressed, the East Wing was demolished within days of an October announcement that construction had begun, according to court records.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued, arguing the project lacked congressional authorization and violated federal law.
On March 31, a district court judge agreed the plaintiffs were likely to succeed, issuing a preliminary injunction halting further construction, with exceptions for actions necessary to maintain White House safety and security.
The government appealed, contending that the injunction itself could jeopardize national security by prolonging vulnerabilities created by the demolition and ongoing construction.
Officials said the site now includes a large excavation and planned installation of security infrastructure, including protective facilities and military-related systems.
The appeals court did not resolve the merits of those claims, instead pointing to unresolved questions about how the injunction interacts with security needs.
Judges noted inconsistencies in the government’s position, including earlier statements that below-ground construction could proceed independently of the ballroom design.
The panel also questioned whether delaying construction would cause additional harm, given that the ballroom project was not expected to be completed until 2028.
Rather than grant a full stay, the court remanded the case for the district court to clarify how its order accommodates security concerns during the appeal process. It also dismissed the government’s request for a broader stay as moot.
In a dissent, Judge Neomi Rao argued the government had demonstrated both legal authority for the project and significant security risks from delaying construction, saying those concerns outweigh the plaintiffs’ aesthetic objections.
The case now returns to the district court for expedited consideration as legal challenges to the project continue.
Solange Reyner ✉
Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.