When last we left the White House ballroom saga, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had punted the case back to Judge Richard Leon at the D.C. District Court for clarification. Leon had previously issued a preliminary injunction halting construction on the ballroom, but included an exemption for those “actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff.”
The administration appealed, and the D.C. Circuit said it needed more information to assess whether a stay pending appeal was warranted.
ALSO SEE: New Twist: DC Circuit Kicks White House Ballroom Case Back to Lower Court Over Security Questions
Judge Hits Pause on Trump’s White House Ballroom Project
Judge Leon has now issued a follow-up amended order and opinion and "clarified" that he's not impressed with the administration's national security argument regarding the ballroom. Leon ruled that the injunction still bars construction of the above-ground structure, and sharply rejected the administration’s contention that national security interests require the continuation of the full project. Work on underground security facilities may continue, per the amended order, but “national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity.”
In a nutshell, the amended order permits continued below-ground construction tied to presidential and national security needs, including bunkers, waterproofing, utility infrastructure, and temporary protective measures, while expressly forbidding any above-ground construction of the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
As noted, Leon's opinion makes it clear (with exclamation points!) that he's not a fan of the administration's argument on the matter:
Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order! My Order preliminarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from "taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom." Prelim. Inj. Order at 2. The accompanying opinion stated that "the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion." Mem. Op. at 1 (emphasis added). It is, to say the least, incredible, if not disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my Order does not stop ballroom construction because of the safety-and-security exception!
He concludes with this:
The Court has taken Defendants' invocation of national security and presidential security seriously throughout this case, which is why I included a safety-and-security exception in my original Order. But national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity, and belated assertions that the above-ground ballroom is "inseparable" from an array of security features, see Defs.' Opp'n at 3, are not an occasion for this Court to reweigh the equities or reconsider the preliminary injunction! In my view, the safety-and-security exception, as clarified, permits measures critical to national and presidential security to move forward pending final resolution of this case and any appeal.
I will close by noting that I have no desire or intention to be dragooned into the role of construction manager. Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, I have never required Defendants to "request and receive written approval" before proceeding with construction. Defs.' Opp'n at 4. The purpose of this opinion is merely to clarify that the injunction does, in fact, stop construction of the above-ground ballroom. I trust that Defendants will be able to implement my Amended Order in good faith and with the benefit of this clarification once my Amended Order goes into effect. In recognition of Defendants' concerns and for the reasons stated in my opinion, see Mem. Op. at 34, I will extend the temporary stay by seven (7) days after the issuance of this opinion and Amended Order.
Listen, I may be slightly mocking the judge's affection for the exclamation point, but I give him some significant style points for the use of "dragooned." We don't often see that one.
In any event, he's again stayed his order from going into effect for seven days to afford the administration to take its appeal — which...it's already filed notice of while I was writing this. Stay tuned!
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges, dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member