President Donald Trump talks to reporters during a tour of White House Ballroom construction at the White House, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The day after Republicans suffered nationwide election losses, President Donald Trump said his ballroom, where the East Wing of the White House used to stand, is a "special structure." Now, the DOJ is going back to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to remove the "shadow of judicial superintendence" over the "roughly 70% complete" project and reach a "summary resolution" in Trump's favor.
Calling the "renovation" a "vital national-security effort taking place on the White House grounds with the President's personal involvement," U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said it is "well past time to dispel the injunctive specter hanging over these critical efforts."
"At a minimum, plenary review is warranted, as the Court's grant of a stay reflects," said the petition for a writ of certiorari filed Thursday and docketed Friday, according to the court's website.
On the last day of August, the justices granted the government a stay of the lower court's injunction in a 5-4 decision, rejecting the "aesthetic injury" claims of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and architectural historian Alison Hoagland and allowing construction to continue.
At the time, the conservative majority said "we do not pass upon the legality of the government's East Wing project," only that the government was "likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief."
Chief Justice John Roberts — joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — wrote a dissent saying that Hoagland is "not just any person," that the White House is "not just any building," and that the construction was "likely unlawful."
Now the ballroom is back on the docket, but the DOJ believes "full-blown merits review serves little purpose."
"Instead, summary disposition in light of the Court's stay decision is the most appropriate course. That is the case here, especially given the extraordinary intrusions posed by the injunction below," the government argued.
"To be sure," the petition went on, "the Court's decision on the government's stay application was itself a preliminary decision. But while preliminary, the decision was thoroughly reasoned after extensive briefing."
"In such a circumstance, it is appropriate for a per curiam to stand on its own, especially where, as here, there are particularly compelling reasons for a speedy disposition in light of the lopsided interests at stake," the filing added.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is set to respond on Dec. 7, according to the docket.