Supreme Court lets construction continue on Trump's $558m ballroom

A divided Supreme Court has allowed the White House to continue construction on a $US400 million ($558 million) ballroom project as lawsuits play out, a win for US President Donald Trump as he exercises unprecedented executive power and remakes the capital in his image.The apparent 5-4 decision replaces a temporary order issued earlier this month, shortly before a court-ordered halt would have gone into effect.The temporary order was signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was assigned to handle appeals from the capital.But he publicly disagreed with the latest decision, writing a strong dissent that referenced historical figures and called the project "likely unlawful" because it has not been approved by Congress.John Roberts was the only conservative justice to dissent. (Reuters/Pool: Leah Millis)"Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. The court's three liberal-leaning justices agreed.The majority, however, found the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely did not have the legal right to challenge the project.The unsigned order pointed to government arguments that the ballroom would address national security concerns by shielding a planned underground military installation and offering a more secure structure for large events than the tents currently used.By contrast, "the only harm the Trust claims is the offense one of its members will suffer from having to view a structure of the 'scale,' 'height,' and 'massing' the government intends," it states.Mr Trump applauded the decision, writing in a social media post, "I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favour of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat".The majority order did not directly decide the legality of the project, instead returning the case to lower courts.However, documents say key portions of the project could be complete within months, a quick timeline compared with a typical legal case.The trust's president and chief executive, Brent Leggs, said the group was disappointed with the decision but pleased with the chief justice's dissent."This is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument: that each President is a temporary steward of the People's House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress," he said in a statement.The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene after federal courts found the project must halt because it did not have congressional approval.The trust's lawsuit argued that Mr Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing.The group's lawyers accused the White House of trying to "outrun the courts" by accelerating construction.In lower courts, the administration has argued that the US president has total authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings.Donald Trump holds a rendering of the new White House ballroom. (Reuters: Kevin Lamarque)Government lawyers said the ballroom project must be completed due to national security concerns, though those were not an initial focus when Mr Trump announced the work he said would be funded by private donations.The administration has said crews are working 20 hours a day on the planned 8,400-square-metre ballroom.The framework is expected to be completed in November and much of the facade done by April, with full completion slated for August 2028, according to court documents.US District Judge Richard Leon ordered a stop to aboveground construction of the planned ballroom in April, though the order would allow work on bunkers and military installations below ground to continue.Judge Leon was nominated by president George W Bush, a Republican.The ruling was suspended but later upheld by a divided appeals court panel.Artist renderings and diagrams of the new White House East Wing and Ballroom. (AP: Jon Elswick)Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents found the project was for Congress to decide and "not a matter for Executive self-help".A third judge, appointed by Mr Trump, found that the preservationist group that challenged the project had no legal right to sue.Solicitor-General D John Sauer also made that argument to the justices and said the decision halting the work was "extraordinary and unlawful".He said the completion of the project was "vitally required by national security".The Trump administration has scored a series of other victories on the high court's emergency docket, though the justices have ruled against some of the president's signature policies after fuller review.AP