An appeals court dealt a blow to US President Donald Trump’s prized White House ballroom project on Friday, upholding a judge’s ruling that construction must halt since Congress had not approved it.<\/p>\n
The appeals court, which had temporarily allowed construction to continue while it considered the case, upheld the lower court’s ruling but stayed its own decision for two weeks, giving Trump time to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.<\/p>\n
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled 2-1 to uphold the district court order to halt construction above ground, while allowing work to continue below ground, where a military bunker is planned.<\/p>\n
“This holding has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy. This ruling does not even necessarily mean that the Defendants may not ultimately construct the ballroom,” the majority wrote.<\/p>\n
“What it does mean is that the Defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”<\/p>\n
Trump, who has repeatedly complained that the White House lacks sufficient space for grand galas such as state dinners, unilaterally ordered construction of the massive ballroom.<\/p>\n
Work on the project began last year with the sudden demolition of the White House’s entire historic East Wing.<\/p>\n
It is just one of Trump’s pet projects to leave his mark on Washington by the time he leaves office in 2029, along with a renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and other parks, as well as the construction of a gigantic arch.
\n(BSS)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An appeals court dealt a blow to US President Donald Trump’s prized White House ballroom project on Friday, upholding a judge’s ruling that construction must halt since Congress had not approved it. The appeals court, which had temporarily allowed construction to continue while it considered the case, upheld the lower court’s ruling but stayed its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9240,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9238"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9238"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9241,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9238\/revisions\/9241"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonotarsomoy.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}