A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump cannot build a $400 million ballroom on the White House grounds without congressional approval, and Trump says the Supreme Court will have the final word.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 opinion on Friday upholding a preliminary injunction that halts all above-ground construction on the 90,000-square-foot structure, which the administration has been building on the site of the demolished East Wing. The ruling hands a significant legal win to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued after the administration tore down the historic wing last year and began construction without seeking authorization from Congress.

Trump fired back within hours. In a Truth Social post, the president called the decision "horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful" and announced the Department of Justice will "immediately appeal to the United States Supreme Court." The court gave him a 14-day window to do so, placing its ruling on hold until then.

The case now heads toward the highest court in the land, adding another front to the president's growing list of legal battles, including a recent Supreme Court fight over mail-in ballot rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Two Democratic-appointed judges say presidents are "temporary tenants"

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia, both appointed by Democratic presidents, drew a hard constitutional line. The court declared that the president lacks unilateral authority to reshape the White House without Congress signing off.

As CNBC reported, the majority wrote:

"Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House."

The opinion went further, stating that "whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help." The judges also dismissed the administration's security rationale, writing that national security arguments "are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card."

In a passage that will likely feature prominently in the Supreme Court briefing, the majority added:

"The bold assertion that the Executive can act with utter lawlessness, destroying treasured national landmarks and harming the interests of individuals, and that no court can stop it flouts our constitutional order."

The Washington Examiner noted that the majority opinion also stated: "The Constitution assigns Congress, not the Executive, the responsibility to decide whether proposed changes to the physical design of the White House may proceed."

That framing puts the dispute squarely in separation-of-powers territory, the kind of question the Supreme Court has historically been willing to take up.

Judge Rao calls the injunction "judicial overreach"

Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump during his first term, wrote a sharp dissent. She accused the lower court, and now her own colleagues, of overstepping the judiciary's role.

"The district court seized supervision of construction at the White House, and my colleagues affirm this judicial overreach."

Rao argued that the trial judge's injunction blocking the project "is beyond the proper province of the federal courts." Her dissent signals the argument the administration is likely to press at the Supreme Court: that federal judges have no business micromanaging construction decisions on the White House grounds, particularly when national security is at stake.

The lower-court rulings came from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee who twice blocked above-ground construction while allowing underground work to continue. That distinction matters, it means foundation and subterranean work has proceeded even as the legal fight plays out above ground.

Trump has repeatedly clashed with the federal judiciary on executive authority questions, from IRS-related rulings he has appealed to emergency stays in defamation cases.

Trump frames the ballroom as a national security necessity

The president has consistently cast the project not as a luxury addition but as a critical security upgrade. On Friday, he referred to the structure as a "military center" and said the ruling left him, White House staff, and visitors exposed to attack.

Fox News reported that Trump wrote on Truth Social:

"The Circuit Court's decision, which is totally wrong on the vital subject of STANDING...severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House."

He also described the plan as including "bomb shelters, medical facilities, shielding from drones and missiles and other security features that are 'all tied together as one big, expensive, and very complex unit.'"

During oral arguments on June 5, Justice Department attorney Yaakov Roth pressed the same point. He argued the courts have no role in weighing a privately funded project and said the National Trust's "architectural preference" should not override national security concerns. Roth also claimed evidence that the former East Wing left the president and others in the White House vulnerable to attack.

The administration has also had to defend the project's price tag. The cost has doubled from initial projections. In May, Trump posted on Truth Social that the increase was justified because the ballroom "is approximately twice the size, and a far higher quality, than the original proposal," adding, "it will be magnificent, safe, and secure!"

The project received formal backing from the National Capital Planning Commission, which AP News reported voted 8-1 to approve the ballroom addition, just two days after Judge Leon's initial order halting construction. Trump had tweaked the design by removing a large staircase that drew criticism and adding an uncovered porch to the southwest side.

National Trust calls the ruling "a great day" for Americans

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which filed the lawsuit after the East Wing demolition, celebrated the decision. The organization sued on the grounds that the administration had not obtained the congressional authorization required for such a sweeping change to the White House.

National Trust President Brent Leggs called it "a great day for our country and for the American people's right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House."

The majority opinion did note that its order does not permanently bar construction of a ballroom. The path forward, as the court sees it, runs through Congress, not the Oval Office.

That distinction is worth watching. If the Supreme Court declines to intervene, or upholds the lower courts, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to authorize the project. Given the current political dynamics, and the fact that the ballroom's cost has already doubled, that congressional vote could become a flashpoint of its own.

The ballroom fight is not the only instance of the administration clashing with courts over efforts to reshape Washington's physical landscape. In a separate lawsuit, a judge recently found that Trump's name was illegally added to the exterior of the Kennedy Center and ordered its removal.

Trump's willingness to take fights directly to the Supreme Court has become a defining feature of his second term, from emergency stays in federal court to policy battles that land on the justices' docket at a pace rarely seen from any administration.

Fourteen days to make the case

The clock is now running. The appeals court gave the administration 14 days to petition the Supreme Court before the construction halt takes full effect. Underground work may continue under prior rulings, but the above-ground structure, the ballroom itself, stays frozen.

The 2-1 split on the panel, with two Democratic appointees in the majority and a Trump appointee in dissent, will feed the administration's argument that the ruling is politically motivated. Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and how quickly, will determine whether the ballroom project survives or becomes the most expensive hole in Washington.

The broader legal question is one conservatives should welcome, not fear: who gets to spend taxpayer-authorized resources on permanent changes to national landmarks? If the answer is "the president, acting alone, with private money and no congressional vote," that principle will not always be wielded by a president conservatives trust. The Supreme Court's docket is already crowded with cases testing the boundaries of executive power. This one may prove the most visible of them all.

Congress exists for a reason. If the ballroom is worth building, it is worth building with a vote.