The White House is, indisputably, federal property. And the Constitution grants Congress ultimate and exclusive control over all “Property belonging to the United States.” The White House was thus built only after Congress passed legislation authorizing its construction—and, for over two hundred years since, it has been renovated and maintained pursuant to congressional authorizations and appropriations. Yet in October 2025, the Trump administration unilaterally demolished the White House’s East Wing and now plans to build a massive ballroom in its stead. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States challenged this demolition and new construction at the “People’s House,” and the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking further construction. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and, in May 2026, the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Members of Congress in support of the National Trust.

In August 2026, the D.C. Circuit upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction barring above-ground construction of a White House ballroom and affirmed Congress’s longstanding “exclusive constitutional authority over federal property like the White House.” As our brief on behalf of Members of Congress urged, the opinion recognized that the President may use only funds authorized and appropriated by Congress to maintain and renovate the White House. The D.C. Circuit then determined that there was an “absence of any express or implied [statutory] authorization for the ballroom construction.”

The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction. In August 2026, CAC filed another amici brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Members of Congress, arguing that the Court should not stay the district court’s injunction and thereby permit the President to continue with the challenged White House construction as litigation proceeds. Our brief at the Supreme Court made three principal points.

First, the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—ultimate control over federal property, including the White House. The Property Clause gives Congress the power “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting . . . Property belonging to the United States.” The Appropriations Clause provides that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” And the District Clause gives Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District . . . as may . . . become the Seat of Government of the United States.” As the district court explained, these three Clauses together establish Congress’s sole authority to permit and fund construction on federal property in Washington D.C., including the White House. Allowing the President to demolish an entire wing of the White House and rebuild it to his liking, while entirely bypassing Congress’s constitutional role, disrupts the balance of powers put in place by the nation’s Framers.

Second, when Congress wants to permit construction on federal property, it legislates to authorize and to appropriate funds for it. Both the House and Senate, drawing on their constitutional power to “determine the Rules of [their] Proceedings,” have developed rules that govern their disbursement of government funds. Legislation dating back to the building of the White House confirms that, when Congress wants to permit White House demolition, renovation, or construction, it authorizes and appropriates funding for specific projects. In this instance, Congress never authorized nor appropriated funds to demolish the East Wing or to construct a massive ballroom in its place. The Trump administration argued that the project is authorized by 3 U.S.C. § 105(d), which authorizes funds to be appropriated for the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.” But that statute authorizes Congress to act (by appropriating funds), not the President. On top of that, the full statutory list makes it clear that the terms “alteration” and “improvement” refer to the upkeep of existing White House structures and do not permit the demolition of an entire wing.

And, separately, Congress never appropriated funds for these unauthorized projects. Instead, Congress appropriated funds for “repair, alteration, and improvement” that fulfill three specific objectives: required maintenance, resolution of safety and health issues, and preventative maintenance. These statutory terms focus on physical preservation of existing structures, and none of them permits destroying an extant structure. In addition, the appropriation itself confirms that Congress did not fund largescale White House construction: the entire amount Congress appropriated, even if devoted solely to that project, would cover less than 1% of the ballroom’s estimated $400,000,000 cost.

Finally, there is no national-security carveout to Congress’s control over federal property and federal spending. If the President believes that national-security concerns warrant the demolition or construction of federal property, the Constitution requires him to come to Congress for authorization and funding. Indeed, Congress has in the past passed legislation addressing security needs related to the White House.

Because the President is not likely to prevail on the merits of this case, the Supreme Court should not stay the injunction and thereby allow White House construction to continue as litigation unfolds.