A federal appeals court panel expressed skepticism Friday about the Trump administration’s view that courts are powerless to stop the construction of the White House ballroom now that the East Wing had been demolished.
Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit repeatedly pressed administration lawyers about its argument that President Donald Trump’s pet project — now well underway — could not be stopped by the courts even if it was found to be illegal, because it was too far along and involved significant national security interests.
“When did it become a fait accompli?” Judge Patricia Millett asked. “If this were complete lawlessness by the government … it couldn’t be stopped?”
“On these theories, I think that’s right,” replied Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department attorney.
Millett, an Obama appointee, peppered Roth with questions about the extent of the Trump administration’s view of its power to “move fast and break things” without being subject to legal challenge.
“If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty — the people whose ancestors that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be done?” the judge asked.
“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth responded.
A federal judge in March halted construction on the ballroom during the legal battle, but the D.C. Circuit quickly paused the ruling, allowing construction to continue while the litigation is ongoing.
The Friday exchange underscored the Trump administration’s full-throttle effort to defend Trump’s massive reconstruction project, which the president has made clear is a personal priority, along with other aesthetic and architectural ambitions he has across Washington. Millett was joined in her skepticism by Judge Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee.
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the plaintiff in the lawsuit, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had a basis to sue in the first place, especially when set against Trump’s claim that the ballroom would serve as a critical national security bulwark in addition to an event space.
Roth told the panel that the Trust’s “aesthetic” concerns about the White House must take a back seat to the security issues at stake.
“The balance of harms and public interest are so lopsided in favor of this project,” Roth said. “It’s an architectural preference on one hand and the safety and security of the president of the United States on the other hand.”
Roth also asserted that it would be overreach for the courts to take any steps to halt the ballroom project at its outset or now, even if it was clearly illegal under federal law. Rather, he said, if a court found the project illegal, the only remedy would lie with Congress.
“Congress can figure out how to deal with that, given the fact that we have these national security imperatives,” Roth said. “It’s well along. They’ve installed like 3 million pounds of steel rebar. … Congress would be the appropriate entity to decide: How do we balance these considerations at this juncture?”
The National Trust’s lawsuit argues that the White House grounds, a designated national park, cannot be updated without congressional approval. The park, like Yellowstone, they contend, can’t simply be repurposed at the whims of the administration.
“They just don’t want to go to Congress,” the trust’s attorney, Tad Heuer said, stressing that, under the Constitution, “Congress controls federal property.”
While other, more modest changes at the White House, such as the installation of tennis courts and a pool, may well have been unauthorized, they were never challenged in court, Heuer said. But the ballroom, which required the demolition of the White House’s entire East Wing, is of a different scale.
Trump has repeatedly ridiculed the lawsuit over the project, asserting in a social media post that it was “brought by a woman walking her dog, who has absolutely No Standing to bring such a suit.” In fact, the National Trust has claimed standing through Alison Hoagland, a historian and retired professor who has volunteered on various preservation boards and regularly visits the area.
Hoagland’s court declaration says nothing about a dog.
from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/l23tvZu
https://ift.tt/3M78FdG
0 Comments