The court paused only the injunction; construction could continue during litigation, with additional reviews and potential congressional input still possible.

The litigation proceeds in a limited capacity, with the court not ruling on the broader statutory questions at this stage.

Lawyers urged a stay on injunctions, arguing the project is urgent for national security and halting work would leave an unsafe excavation site.

The U.S. Commission on Fine Arts approved the ballroom design on February 19, 2026, after a single hearing, reflecting involvement from Trump administration appointees.

The case is Nat’l Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, with ongoing potential for further action if the Trust files an amended complaint.

The judge criticized the plaintiffs’ theory, finding they did not present a proper action to challenge whether the President exceeded statutory authority to pursue private funding and construction without Congress.

A December preliminary hearing cautioned against ground-level work that could affect the above-ground scope, underscoring limits on construction decisions during the process.

Construction has begun without input from two federal review panels, though the Commission of Fine Arts recently approved the design and the National Capital Planning Commission plans to discuss it again in early March.

A federal judge denied an immediate injunction sought by a preservationist group to halt the White House ballroom project, signaling that the group is unlikely to prevail on the merits and hinting that amended litigation could proceed.

Demolition of the East Wing occurred last October, with above-ground work not expected before spring 2026, and the White House has engaged relevant federal commissions and completed an environmental assessment.

The lawsuit has brought public details to light, including a redesigned East Colonnade, preservation plans for artifacts from the demolished wing, and an anticipated construction timeline.

The National Trust challenges the environmental assessment as inadequate and argues it was issued after demolition.