DOJ argues Trump could 'bulldoze' Statue of Liberty during White House ballroom hearing
A lawyer for the Justice Department told a federal appeals court panel on Friday that the Trump administration believes the White House ballroom project cannot be stopped by judges, and that even if the president wanted to "bulldoze" the Statue of Liberty, no one could sue to stop him.
"Let me ask you a straightforward question: that this court, the Supreme Court, no court could stop the building of this [ballroom]?" asked Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee.
"Yes," answered Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth.
Roth said the controversial project is "well on its way," with more than 3 million pounds of steel rebar now on site.
"I think it would have been improper to enjoin it, even on day one," Roth said.
Across two hours of oral argument, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit grappled with the Trump administration's view that laws passed decades ago authorize the building of the ballroom today.
While the court, at times, appeared skeptical that President Donald Trump had the authority to carry out the construction without congressional approval, the panel seemed conflicted about whether the National Trust for Historic Preservation had the right to bring a suit challenging the project.
DOJ attorney Roth argued that the organization lacked standing in part because the court could not correct the alleged harm, since the former East Wing has already been demolished and construction on its replacement is now so far along. That led Judge Millett to rebuke what she called the administration's "move fast and break things" approach.
"If you move fast enough, nobody has standing to challenge it?" she asked.
"I do think that that is correct," Roth said. "The injury, it becomes non-redressable."
When pressed by Millett on a hypothetical circumstance she introduced involving the Statue of Liberty, Roth acknowledged that the same argument would apply if the Trump administration attempted to quickly demolish it.
"If the government decided to move very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty," Millett began, pointing to a theoretical lawsuit brought by those whose ancestors saw the statue on arrival. "[If] the government moved too fast, nothing can be done?"
"I think that's right, yes," Roth said, in a moment that sparked audible gasps in the courtroom.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has argued it had the right to sue to block the construction, in part, by citing its congressional charter, which empowers it to protect historic sites.
Overnight, President Trump directly attacked Alison Hoagland, a board member of National Trust for Historic Preservation involved in the lawsuit who argued she would be harmed by the ballroom's construction.
Millet appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's claim that Hoagland lacks standing.
"She wants to see the White House complex in a way that perpetuates the architectural design of modesty and simplicity," Millett said. "You say, well, 'Hold your hand like this while you look at it, and you'll be good.' That's not an issue?"
The court at times appeared skeptical that the statutes cited by the Trump administration provide the broad authority to build the ballroom. One of them, a lower court judge found, only allows for the maintenance and upkeep of the White House.
"[The statute] does not say the president is authorized to make improvements," said Judge Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee. "This cannot be a source of authority for demolishing and replacing part of the construction."
Judge Neomi Rao also raised questions about whether the Office of the Executive Residence, an arm of the White House, has the authority to manage the construction on behalf of the National Park Service.
"There's, like, a missing connection, if that's an independent argument," Rao said.
But Rao, a Trump appointee, also asked several questions of both sides that indicated she has strong doubts about the National Trust's standing to sue.
Beyond the standing issue, the Justice Department's Roth argued that blocking the ballroom construction would pose a national security risk that outweighs the concerns raised by the plaintiffs.
"It's an architectural preference on one hand, and the safety and security of the president of the United States, on the other hand," Roth said, adding that the now-demolished White House East Wing "was not adequate" to protect the president.
"This project is designed to update those protective features to ensure that they are capable of withstanding modern weaponry, like drones and other modern methods of attack that are very serious," he said, insisting the entire East Wing project is necessary to create a place where "the president and the leadership of the government have a place to go that is highly secure in the event that there is an attack."
The Trump administration is asking the appellate judges to throw out a lower court judge's order halting the ballroom's construction after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in late March that Trump has gone beyond his authority in building the ballroom.
Leon's order was administratively stayed by the appellate panel on April 17, a move that has allowed construction to continue since then.
