DOJ argues Trump could ‘bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty during White House ballroom hearing – ABC News

The Justice Department defended the Trump administration’s White House ballroom project before a federal appeals court on Friday, arguing that the judiciary cannot block the construction and that no court could stop the president from demolishing any historic site, including the Statue of Liberty. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the project, which has already demolished the White House East Wing and installed over 3 million pounds of steel rebar, cannot be enjoined because moving fast enough prevents plaintiffs from establishing legal standing to challenge government action. When Judge Patricia Millett posed a hypothetical about the Statue of Liberty, Roth acknowledged the same logic applied: if the administration moved quickly enough to demolish it, the injury would become “non-redressable” and no lawsuit could proceed.

Judge Millett rebuked what she termed the administration’s “move fast and break things” approach, questioning whether speed alone could foreclose judicial review. Roth affirmed that doctrine explicitly, stating that rapid action rendering harm impossible to undo eliminates standing. The panel also heard arguments about national security, with Roth framing the ballroom as essential protection for the president against modern threats like drones, though this claim contradicts the statutes the administration initially cited, which authorize only maintenance and upkeep of the White House, not demolition and reconstruction.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation brought the lawsuit to block construction, citing its congressional charter to protect historic sites. Judge Millett appeared skeptical of the government’s position that the organization lacked standing, noting that Alison Hoagland, a National Trust board member involved in the case, had a legitimate interest in preserving the architectural integrity of the White House complex. Trump attacked Hoagland directly overnight in response to her courtroom testimony about the harm the ballroom would cause to historic design principles.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had halted construction in late March, finding Trump exceeded his authority in authorizing the ballroom. However, the appeals panel administratively stayed Leon’s order on April 17, allowing work to continue while the court considered the case. During oral arguments, Judges Bradley Garcia and Neomi Rao questioned whether the statutes cited by the administration actually granted the president power to demolish and replace structures, with Garcia noting the relevant law permits only maintenance, not improvements or reconstruction.

The case hinges on whether Trump possesses unilateral authority to modify the White House complex without congressional approval and whether courts retain power to review such decisions. The administration’s theory that rapid execution of government(Source: https://abcnews.com/amp/US/appeals-court-hear-arguments-trumps-ballroom-plans-continue/story?id=133589066) projects eliminates judicial oversight entirely represents an unprecedented assertion of executive immunity from legal challenge, one the appellate panel appeared divided on accepting.