By The Daily Caller (U.S.) | Created at 2026-08-14 17:21:51 | Updated at 2026-08-14 19:16:29
4 hours ago
President Donald Trump is escalating the legal battle surrounding the White House ballroom construction to the Supreme Court, according to an emergency stay request filed Friday.
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow construction of the ballroom to continue, citing previous assassination attempts against the president and national security concerns. This filing comes after an appeals court in Washington, D.C. ordered the construction to be halted until lawmakers give their stamp of approval. (RELATED: Federal Appeals Court Slams Brakes On Trump’s White House Ballroom Construction Blitz)
“The President of the United States of America is not a tenant, but rather the sole, elected head of the Executive Branch, and Congress has authorized him to renovate, secure, and protect the White House and its grounds, as other Presidents have been allowed to do, without exception,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the filing. “The injunction is ‘judicial overreach beyond the proper province of the federal courts.’”
“If allowed to go into effect, the injunction would wrongfully install a single district judge as sole arbiter of what further construction is ‘strictly necessary’ to protect the safety of the President, his family, staff members, and visitors to the White House, including foreign dignitaries, and presidents and prime ministers of other countries.”
Sauer criticized one of the plaintiffs whose objection to the ballroom underpinned the lower court’s injunction halting construction, suggesting her opposition was personal preference rather than a sound legal argument. Sauer also argued the injunction is pointless since the construction had already been underway since October 2025. (RELATED: Trump’s $1,000,000,000 Ballroom Security Request Reportedly Hits Snag With GOP)
“Her subjective preference does not create a concrete, particularized injury, no matter how strongly she feels about the White House’s appearance (or any other federal building’s),” Sauer wrote.
“Her distaste, moreover, is subjective and personal, not universal — contrary to the lower courts’ presumption.”
