Case: National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service
1:25-cv-04316 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: Dec. 12, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case challenging the Trump Administration’s plan to construct a ballroom via the demolition of the White House’s East Wing.
On December 12, 2025, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Donald Trump, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), the Department of the Interior, and the General Services Administration to challenge the demolition of the White House's East Wing. The National Trust for Historic Preservation ("Plaintiff" or the "Trust") is a private, charitable non-profit that protects the nation's historic sites through stewardship, advocacy, and direct assistance. It argued that the demolition of the White House's East Wing, undertaken in October 2025 at the direction of President Trump in order to construct a ballroom, was done without the requisite review. In particular, they asserted violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), for failure to consult with, submit plans for review to, or obtain approval from the National Capital Planning Commission ("NCPC"), for failure to request advice from the Commission of Fine Arts ("CFA"), for inadequate environmental assessment and failure to prepare an environmental impact statement, and for improper segmentation of review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as violation of the Separation of Powers in light of Congress's exclusive control over federal property. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting additional work on the Ballroom Project until after proper review and authorization, and fees and costs. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. Also on December 12, the Trust filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
On December 17, 2025, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and deferred judgment on its motion for a preliminary injunction. 813 F.Supp.3d 42. It reasoned that the Trust had not demonstrated the required "clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm," explaining that the asserted procedural harm of being denied participation in the review process was not, without more, enough to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that, at the current stage of planning and construction, the plaintiff had not shown "certain, great, actual imminent, and beyond remediation" aesthetic harm. The court "t[ook] seriously the Government's representations that its plans are not yet final, that it will commence consultations with the NCPC and CFA by the end of this month, and that no above-grade construction will take place before April 2026," and warned that if any below-grade construction dictating size or scale of proposed ballroom took place before a decision on the preliminary injunction, the government "should be prepared to take it down" depending on the resolution of the merits of the case.
The amended complaint first named four new defendants associated with the White House staff and administration: The Executive Office of the President (EOP) and the Office of the Executive Residence (OER). The amended complaint next included factual updates, alleging that the project was now proceeding under the leadership of OER and EOP, rather than the NPS, and that the NPS published an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on December 15, 2025, after demolition was already underway. The plaintiff also expanded their legal claims to incorporate the factual developments, adding a claim that President Trump unconstitutionally seized control of the project from the NPS, where Congress had legally vested authority, and transferred it to the EOP and OER in violation of the Separation of Powers. The amended complaint also omitted its claim regarding the improper segmentation of NEPA review. Finally, the amended complaint sought an injunction against the EOP and OER to prevent them from administering any further work without congressional authorization.
On February 26, 2026, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. While the court acknowledged the plaintiff's standing to sue based on the aesthetic and professional interests of its members, it found that the APA did not apply to the OER because the office is not an “agency,” and that the plaintiff’s constitutional claims were actually statutory disputes outside the court's current authority to review. To proceed, the court noted that the plaintiff would need to amend its complaint to include an ultra vires claim challenging the President's statutory power. 821 F.Supp.3d 62.
On March 2, 2026, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added three new ultra vires claims. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the ballroom project required express congressional approval per statutory requirements and should have been overseen by the NPS, rather than the OER.
After the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint, it filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on March 5, 2026, requesting again that the court enjoin any further construction on the project pending litigation. A hearing was held on March 17.
Judge Leon granted the Trust's Motion for a preliminary injunction on March 31, 2026, finding that no statute gives the President authority to build the ballroom. 827 F.Supp.3d 93. The court specifically held that 3 U.S.C. § 105(d) only authorizes ordinary maintenance and repair of the White House, not wholesale demolition and reconstruction, and that 40 U.S.C. § 8106 explicitly prohibits erecting buildings on federal grounds in D.C. without "express authority of Congress."
That same day, the defendants filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court (Case No. 26-5101). On April 3, the defendants filed an emergency motion in the D.C. Circuit Court seeking a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. Defendants argued they were likely to succeed on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing based on their claim resting upon a "single pedestrian's subjective architectural feelings" and because the President possessed complete statutory authority under 3 U.S.C. § 105(d) for alterations and improvements. They emphasized the potential for irreparable harm from national security threats created by the exposed construction site, disruption to Secret Service operations, and risks to construction materials and security infrastructure from weather exposure. The applicants requested relief by April 10, 2026, citing the urgency created by $400 million in committed private donations and ongoing material deliveries.
On April 11, 2026, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case back to the district court, ordered an extension of the district court’s administrative stay, and denied defendants’ request for a stay of the preliminary injunction as moot. The court found that there were important unresolved factual questions about whether stopping construction would harm national security or interfere with necessary safety measures at the White House. The court noted inconsistencies in the government’s earlier statements about whether underground security work was separate from the ballroom construction, and it was unclear how the injunction affected those concerns. Because of these uncertainties, the appellate court wanted the district court to clarify how the injunction’s safety-and-security exception, which allowed construction to continue and exempted from the preliminary injunction actions necessary to protect the White House and its grounds, ensure the President’s safety, and protect staff and visitors, should work in practice. The appellate court also temporarily extended the temporary administrative stay of the injunction until April 17, 2026, to give the government time to seek further review if it chooses. It dismissed the broader request for a permanent stay as moot, since more fact-finding is necessary. 2026 WL 980554
Judge Neomi Rao dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the government should have been granted a full stay immediately. The dissent claimed the nonprofit likely lacked legal standing to sue and that the construction project was probably authorized by federal law. It also emphasized that halting construction could create serious and ongoing security risks at the White House, which outweigh the aesthetic concerns raised by the plaintiffs. 2026 WL 980554
Back in the District Court, the plaintiff filed a motion to clarify the scope of the injunction. The same day, the defendants filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction, arguing that a stay was necessary and appropriate. The defendants pointed to the language in the preliminary injunction, which had an exception for "actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds," and argued that construction was necessary to protect the personal safety of President Trump. As such, defendants argued that the entire ballroom construction project fell within the safety-and-security exception and therefore should proceed.
In response, on April 16, 2026, Judge Leon issued an order clarifying the scope of the injunction. 2026 WL 1027744. He rejected defendants' argument regarding the safety-and-security exception. He further clarified that the injunction stopped only the above-ground construction of the planned ballroom; it did not stop the below-ground construction of national security facilities, work necessary to provide for presidential security, or construction necessary to protect and secure the White House and the construction site itself.
The defendants immediately appealed Judge Leon's order clarifying the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Case No. 26-5123). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a conditional cross-appeal (Case No. 26-5134) from the February 26, 2026, order denying the Trust’s first motion for a preliminary injunction, in the event that the D.C. Circuit does not affirm the March 31, 2026 order.
On April 17, 2026, the defendants filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal in the D.C. Circuit. The defendants argued two main points: first, that the revised injunction imposes "serious, irreparable harm" warranting a stay; and second, that the District Court’s rationales were wrong because the permitted below-ground facilities were interdependent with the overall structure that can only exist with appropriate above-ground building. The defendants requested that the Court extend the administrative stay for an additional 14 days.
The same day, the D.C. Circuit issued a per curiam order administratively staying the case pending further order of the court. 2026 WL 1097554.
On April 24, 2026, the D.C. Circuit consolidated the two appeals.
On April 27, 2026, the day after an assassination attempt was conducted against President Trump, the defendants moved for an indicative ruling dissolving the court's injunction. The defendants emphasized the importance of the project for securing the safety of the President and all future Presidents. The defendants argued that the most recent assassination attempt could never have taken place in the new ballroom, and that in order to protect the safety of the President, the injunction must be dissolved. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff suffered from "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and that its lawsuit was "frivolous and meritless."
Oral argument was held in the D.C. Circuit on June 5, 2026.
On August 7, 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s modified preliminary injunction halting the construction of the 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds. 2026 WL 2276494. The court held that the Trust had associational standing and concluded that the Trust was likely to succeed on the merits, finding that the NPS lacked statutory authority to construct the ballroom under 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a) because the project did not "conserve" historic objects, and that 40 U.S.C. § 8106 required express congressional authorization for such construction. Additionally, the court determined that 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(1) did not confer independent authority on the OER to proceed without congressional appropriations. The court also found that the National Trust had shown irreparable harm, as the construction would permanently alter the White House’s historic integrity, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preserving the site.
Judge Rao dissented, arguing that the National Trust lacked standing and that the government’s security interests outweighed aesthetic concerns.
The same day, the D.C. Circuit filed an order that the Clerk withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after any timely petition for rehearing or petition for hearing en banc. This order was then vacated on the same day, and the court directed the Clerk to issue the mandate on August 21, 2026.
On August 13, 2026, defendants filed in the Supreme Court an application to stay the district court's injunction and a request for an immediate administrative stay while the government prepared its petition for a writ of certiorari. The defendants requested the immediate administrative stay given the D.C. Circuit's directions to issue its mandate affirming the district court's injunction on August 21, 2026. Responses to the defendants' application for stay are due August 18, 2026.
On August 21, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order staying the April 16 preliminary injunction ordered by the district court. The stay temporarily allows President Trump to continue construction of the ballroom to replace the East Wing.
On August 31, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the application to stay the injunction pending the filing and disposition of the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court concluded that the government is likely to succeed on the merits and is likely to suffer irreparable harm, so the balance of equities tips in its favor. The majority found that the government is likely to prevail in showing the Trust lacks standing, finding that the injury of the Trust’s member as harm to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” does not qualify as concrete and particularized under Article III. The court feared that allowing offense, disagreement, or distaste alone to suffice would allow “virtually every citizen…to challenge virtually every government action they do not like.” Additionally, the court rejects the Trust’s argument that because the Trust’s members possess “focused and substantiated” expertise in historic architecture, there is standing, stating that the court has consistently held that standing “is not measured by the intensity of the litigant’s interest” (Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U. S., at 486).
The Supreme Court found that the government established that it will likely suffer irreparable harm from the district court’s injunction. The majority cited declarations from directors of departments dealing with national security, attesting to the harms that would likely arise in that realm from enjoining a project that cannot be “readily cleaved into distinct below- and above-ground pieces.” This is compared to the Trust’s claims of harm being the offense of one of its members, which the court found tipped in the government’s favor.
Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented in this case. The dissent stated that the construction is likely unlawful, as express Congressional authority is required to build on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in D.C. under 40 U. S. C. § 8106, which the court explained was not given for this construction. On the issue of standing, the dissent found that due to the distinctive nature of the White House and the Trust member’s focus and substantiated interest in viewing it in its traditional form, her aesthetic injury from the construction is concrete and particularized enough to suffice for standing. Additionally, the dissent finds that “mere esthetic interests” will suffice to establish the concrete and particularized injury required, as seen in Summers, 555 U. S., at 494. The dissent concluded by stating that the majority is allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in D.C. to continue.
As of September 3, 2026, this case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madilynn O'Hara (5/31/2026)
Madeline Dollard (8/12/2026)
Sadie Henderson (8/14/2026)
Clearinghouse (12/28/2025)
Sofia Yoder (4/13/2026)
Maddy Ligon (4/7/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/parties/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/
Attorney, Gregory Bestor (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Michael S. (District of Columbia)
Barta, James Allen
Biazzo, Corey John
Boyle, David Christopher
Attorney, Michael S. (District of Columbia)
Cumming, Gregory Martin (District of Columbia)
Gustafson, Adam R.F. (District of Columbia)
Mayers, Brantley (District of Columbia)
Myers, Steven Andrew (District of Columbia)
Nkeng, Michelle M. (District of Columbia)
Piropato, Marissa Ann (District of Columbia)
Ramus, Michelle M. (District of Columbia)
Roth, Jacob M. (District of Columbia)
Shumate, Brett A. (District of Columbia)
Sirkovich, Eitan (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028010/national-trust-for-historic-preservation-in-the-united-states-v-national/
Last updated Oct. 8, 2026, 3:50 a.m.
Docket for: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 12, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private, charitable non-profit that protects the nation's historic sites through stewardship, advocacy, and direct assistance.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Department of the Interior
Donald J. Trump
General Services Administration
National Park Service
Office of the Executive Residence (OER)
The Executive Office of the President (EOP)
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-04316
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05101
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05123
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05134
Supreme Court of the United States 26A203
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47494/ (last updated 4/7/2026).