National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC ) PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED ) STATES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Case No. 25-4316 (RJL) V. ) ) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________ __ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION April I(,~ 2026 [Dkt. #65, 71]

On March 31, 2026, I granted the motion of the National Trust for Historic

Preservation in the United States ("National Trust") for a preliminary injunction to halt

construction of a ballroom on White House grounds as ultra vires. In recognition of the

national security and presidential security concerns raised by the ongoing construction

project, I excluded from the scope of the injunction "actions strictly necessary to ensure

the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom

construction site, and provide for the personal safety of the President and his staff."

Defendants now seek to tum this exception on its head and unreasonably insist that the

entire ballroom project may proceed. Based on the record before me, I cannot possibly

agree, but I will clarify the scope of the injunction as described below.

1 BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2026, I granted the National Trust's motion for a preliminary

injunction. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. #60]; Prelim. Inj. Order [Dkt. #61]. The Order

preliminarily enjoined Defendants (excluding the President) from "taking any action in

furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the

East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site

preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction

or related work[.]" Prelim. Inj. Order at 2. My Order excluded from the scope of the

injunction "actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House

and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and provide for the personal

safety of the President and his staff" (the "safety-and-security exception"). Id.

On April 1, the National Trust, citing public statements by the President interpreting

my Order, filed a motion for clarification of the preliminary injunction ("Motion to

Clarify"). See Mot. for Clarification [Dkt. #65]. Defendants meanwhile, not surprisingly,

filed an appeal and an emergency motion to stay. See Emergency Mot. for Stay Pending

Appeal, Nat'/ Tr. for Hist. Pres. v. NPS, No. 26-5101 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 3, 2026) [Dkt.

#2167119]. On April 11, our Circuit Court remanded the case "with instructions to

promptly address the pending motion to clarify how the injunction and its exception ensure

safety and security pending litigation" and extended my temporary stay of the preliminary

injunction to April 17, 2026. Order,Nat'l Tr.for Hist. Pres. v. NPS, No. 26-5101 (D.C. Cir.

Apr. 11, 2026) ("Per Curi am Order") [Dkt. #2168165]. On April 13, Defendants filed their

opposition ("Defs.' Opp'n") [Dkt. #69] to the National Trust's motion to clarify and

2 attached a Secret Service declaration. See Deel. of U.S. Secret Service Deputy Director

Matthew C. Quinn ("Third Quinn Deel.") [Dkt. #69-1]. On April 14, the National Trust

filed a reply in support of its motion. Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Clarification ("Reply")

[Dkt. #70]. That same day, Defendants filed a motion seeking a further 14-day stay of the

preliminary injunction. Mot. to Extend Administrative Stay of Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. #71). The

motions are now ripe for decision.

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls

within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated. That is

neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order! My Order preliminarily enjoined

Defendants (excluding the President) from "taking any action in furtherance of the physical

development of the proposed ballroom." Prelim. Inj. Order at 2. The accompanying

opinion stated that "the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes

its completion." Mem. Op. at 1 (emphasis added). It is, to say the least, incredible, if not

disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my Order does not stop ballroom

construction because of the safety-and-security exception!

For the reasons that follow, I will further clarify and amend my Order to stop only

above-ground construction of the planned ballroom. My Amended Order does not,

however, stop below-ground construction of national security facilities, work necessary to

provide for presidential security, and construction necessary to protect and secure the White

House and the construction site itself.

First, limiting the scope of the injunction to above-ground construction directly

3 addresses the National Trust's irreparable harm, which stems from the above-ground,

visible construction of the ballroom. See Mem. Op. at 29-32; see also PI. 's Mem. in Supp.

of Prelim. Inj. [Dkt. #51-1] at 24-25 ("[T]he National Trust has never requested ... that

the Court enjoin construction of a bunker. The National Trust is simply requesting that the

Court enjoin construction of the Ballroom."). My Order barring above-ground construction

provides "complete relief' to the National Trust, while minimizing the "burden[]" to

Defendants through the safety-and-security exception. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S.

831,852 (2025) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).

Second, the injunction excludes only below-ground construction because,

throughout this case, Defendants raised discrete national security concerns about

construction of underground elements. Early on, Defendants argued that "security

concerns . . . warrant[ ed] permitting the current below-grade construction to continue."

Defs.' TRO Opp'n [Dkt. #15-1] at 27; see also TRO Hr'g Tr. [Dkt. #18] at 20:22-24 ("[T]he

below-ground work that's occurring now has nothing to do with Plaintiff's asserted

aesthetic injury, and that work must continue for national security reasons."). Specifically,

Defendants indicated that national security-related facilities are being constructed below

ground. See, e.g., Defs.' Suppl. Br. [Dkt. #30] at 41 (referencing a "security bunker" and

stating that "an injunction halting construction would endanger national security").

The exception for underground national security facilities does not include the

proposed ballroom because Defendants themselves distinguished between below-ground

and above-ground construction, stating that "the below-surface work is driven by national

security concerns independent of the above-grade construction." Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 39

4 (emphasis added); see also Deel. of Professional Engineer [Dkt. #30-4] at i15 (referencing

the "national security concerns with aspects of the below grade structure"). Defendants

also repeatedly represented that the project's below-ground elements do not "lock in" the

design of the above-ground ballroom. Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 4; see also Defs.' Mot. to Modify

Schedule [Dkt. #22] i1 4; Defs.' Mot. to Stay [Dkt. #39] at 2; cf Deel. of John Stanwich

("Stanwich Deel.") [Dkt. #14-6] i1 21 (noting the below-ground elements could be

"constructed as planned while the above grade design is finalized").

Defendants now brazenly assert that below-ground construction has "been done

with th[e] expectation of what would go above," and that the "project is a single, coherent

whole." Third Quinn Deel. ,r 7. Defendants argue that security-related elements of the

ballroom, such as "missile-resistant steel columns and beams, drone-proof roofing, and

bullet- and blast-proof glass windows" will "advance safety and security interests as part

of an inseparable whole." Defs. ' Opp'n at 3. Defendants further argue that "leaving the

site as it stands poses serious safety and security threats that can only be addressed by

proceeding with construction as planned." Id. In my view, these arguments fail to justify

Defendants' extraordinary, if not disingenuous, reading of my preliminary injunction

Order.

Indeed, Defendants' latest representations that "the entire project advances critical

national-security objectives as an integrated whole," see Defs.' Opp'n at 1, are in direct

conflict with Defendants' prior representations that the above-ground and below-ground

portions of the project were "independent of" one another, see Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 39.

Defendants now insist that the "overall above-ground ballroom is necessary to

5 accommodate and effectuate the below-ground additions (including by providing adequate,

reinforced cover)." Defs.' Opp'n at 3. But Defendants do not explain why the proposed

90,000-square-foot ballroom-the source of the National Trust's claimed injury and likely

unauthorized by statute-is required for security purposes now. Instead, the supporting

declaration states merely that an "above-ground slab and topping structure is [sic] needed"

to protect the underground elements. Third Quinn Deel. ,r 7; see also id. ,r 6 ("[L]eaving

nothing on top of the below-ground construction is not an option."). As I clarify below,

Defendants may, consistent with the injunction, cover and secure the below-ground

construction while litigation proceeds. Further, while Defendants predicted in December

that above-ground construction would begin, at the earliest, this month, see Stanwich Deel.

,r 20, Defendants, to date, have not provided any updates on whether the below-ground facilities are ready for a "topping structure."

The fact that the ballroom is planned to include security features such as bullet-

proof windows and a drone-proof roof does not bring the structure within the scope of the

exception. While these features may well be beneficial, Defendants have not provided any

national security justification for why these features must be installed immediately such

that they should be excluded from the scope of the injunction. Nor does it appear

Defendants could install these features immediately even if they wanted to. As noted by

our Circuit Court, the ballroom's planned security features are still months, if not years,

away from being realized-belying Defendants' argument that an inability to implement

those features now imposes irreparable harm. Per Curiam Order at 3; Defs.' Opp'n at 4

(acknowledging that "the project is expected to take another two years until completion").

6 Defendants' insistence that leaving the site "dormant" poses additional security risks

also fails. As an initial matter, my Amended Order permits below-ground construction,

measures for presidential security, and measures to secure the grounds. Further, I

previously rejected Defendants' argument that "any construction delay will undermine

national security," Mem. Op. at 33, because-and here is the bottom line-Defendants

themselves forged ahead and created this "coordinated and managed safety hazard" on

White House grounds, id. (quoting Deel. of U.S. Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew

C. Quinn ("Second Quinn Deel.") [Dkt. #30-5] ,r 8).

Defendants' four classified ex parte declarations, all of which I reviewed and have

taken into consideration, see Mem. Op. at 33 n.20, shed no further light on the question of

whether the above-ground ballroom is necessary for national security. Without more, I

cannot find that above-ground construction of the proposed ballroom must proceed. 1

Apart from the below-ground national security facilities, Defendants have identified

two additional categories of construction "necessary" for presidential security and the

safety of the White House grounds. Second Quinn Deel. ,r 6. Defendants indicated that

the Secret Service is "coordinat[ing] with the [ballroom] contractor on ... temporary

measures to ensure the security and safety of the President, the First Family, and the White

House complex." Deel. of U.S. Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew C. Quinn ("First

1 To be sure, Defendants have, at times, represented that it would be "unworkable to distinguish between construction elements that are national-security related and those that are not." Defs.' Mot. to Stay [Dkt. #39] at 2; Defs.' Opp'n to Renewed Mot. for Prelim. lnj. at 36. Arguments about workability are distinct from asserting that the entire ballroom is a national security imperative. In any event, my Amended Order permitting below-ground construction mitigates at least some workability concerns.

7 Quinn Deel.") [Dkt. #14-11] ,r 7. According to the Secret Service, "[t]hese outstanding

security projects are expected to require additional weeks or months to complete." Second

Quinn Deel. ,r,r 5-6.

Defendants have also indicated a need to preserve and protect the structural integrity

of the White House and to protect the construction site itself from deterioration due to the

elements. See Second Quinn Deel. ,r 6 (noting that "continued waterproofing and water

management is necessary to maintain the integrity of security elements throughout the

Complex as flooding poses risks to infrastructure, utilities, and other critical systems");

Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 40 (explaining that "below-ground work on waterproofing, security

improvements, and utility infrastructure will have to take place at some point regardless of

what is erected above-ground"); Defs.' Opp'n to Renewed Mot. for Prelim. lnj. [Dkt. #52]

at 34 (halting all construction "would expose the Executive Mansion to damage"). Both

categories of construction activities may proceed.

* * *

In light of the National Trust's motion and the parties' arguments, and in

consideration of Defendants' concerns about national security and presidential security, I

will hereby clarify and amend my preliminary injunction Order to specify that below-

ground construction may proceed, including the construction of any "top-secret

excavations, bunkers, bomb-shelters, protective partitioning, military installations, and

hospital and medical facilities," as well as such above-ground construction strictly

8 necessary to cover, secure, and protect such facilities. Defs.' Opp'n at 2. The Amended

Order permits "temporary measures," First Quinn Deel. 17, which have already been in

place, to provide for the personal security of the President. The Amended Order also

permits construction necessary to protect the project site and to protect the structural

integrity of the White House complex, including waterproofing, water management, and

resolving construction risks such as "uncovered rebar and exposed cables around the site."

Third Quinn Deel. 1 4. However, the injunction does not permit above-ground construction

of the proposed ballroom.

The Court has taken Defendants' invocation of national security and presidential

security seriously throughout this case, which is why I included a safety-and-security

exception in my original Order. But national security is not a blank check to proceed with

otherwise unlawful activity, and belated assertions that the above-ground ballroom is

"inseparable" from an array of security features, see Defs.' Opp'n at 3, are not an occasion

for this Court to reweigh the equities or reconsider the preliminary injunction! In my view,

the safety-and-security exception, as clarified, permits measures critical to national and

presidential security to move forward pending final resolution of this case and any appeal. 2

2 Defendants insist that their arguments about national security cannot be subject to "judicial second-

guessing." Defs.' Opp'n at 4. Indeed, precedent "counsel[s] deference in national security matters." Ctr. for Nat 'I Sec. Stud. v. U.S. Dept ofJust., 331 F.3d 918, 927 (D.C. Cir. 2003). But judicial deference is not the same as withholding judicial review altogether. See id. at 928 (applying deference "so long as the government's declarations raise legUimate concerns [about] national security" (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195, 205 (2022) (in context of military secrets privilege, a "court must decide for itself whether the occasion is appropriate for claiming the privilege"); TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S . 56, 82 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the judgment) (noting that the Supreme Court "decline[ d] to consider the classified evidence the government has submitted to us"). Indeed, two of my colleagues recently granted preliminary injunctions notwithstanding the Government's invocation of national security concerns and reliance on classified declarations. See Hr'g Tr. at 43:11-14, 44:4-10, Rhode Island v. U.S.

9 I will close by noting that I have no desire or intention to be dragooned into the role

of construction manager. Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, I have never required

Defendants to "request and receive written approval" before proceeding with construction.

Defs.' Opp'n at 4. The purpose of this opinion is merely to clarify that the injunction does,

in fact, stop construction of the above-ground ballroom. I trust that Defendants will be

able to implement my Amended Order in good faith and with the benefit of this clarification

once my Amended Order goes into effect. In recognition of Defendants' concerns and for

the reasons stated in my opinion, see Mem. Op. at 34, I will extend the temporary stay by

seven (7) days after the issuance of this opinion and Amended Order. 3

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the National Trust's Motion

to Clarify [Dkt. #65] is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion to Extend Administrative

Stay of Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. #71] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. An

Amended Order will issue contemporaneously with this opinion.

�I.LEON United States District Judge

Dep ofInterior, Dep 'ti of Interior, No. No. 25-cv-4328 25cv4328 (D.D.C. (D.D.C.filed Jan. 12, filed Jan. 12, 2026), Dkt. #55] 2026) [Dkt. #55 (noting (notinggovernment's government's "failure to "'failure to explain explain oror apply apply ... (its][the] stated national stated security national reason); se-eurity 15, 2026 Jan.Min. mason"); Order,Min. Order, Empire Empire Leaseholder Leaseholder LLC LLC v. Burgum, v. Burgum, No. 26-cv-4No. 26cv4filed (D.O.C. (D.D.C.). Jan. 15, 2026}. 33 The Court gives fair notice to Defendants, however, that any above-ground construction over the next The Court gives fair notice to Defendants, however, that any above-ground construction over the next seven days that seven days that is is. not not in in compliance with my compliance with my Amended Amended Order Order is at risk is at being taken of being risk of taken down down pending pending thethe resolution resolution ofof this this case. case. 10