govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-04316-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC 
PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED 
STATES, 
Plaintiff, 
V. 
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, et al., 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) Civil Case No. 25-4316 (RJL) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
_______ _ __ ) 
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 1 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 2 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 3 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 4 of 10
(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 3 9. 
Defendants now insist that the "overall above-ground ballroom is necessary to 
5 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 5 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 6 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 7 of 10
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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 8 of 10
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 of Just., 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 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 9 of 10
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 i of Interior, No. 25cv4328 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 12, 2026), Dkt. #55 (noting government's "failure to 
explain or apply (its] stated national security reason); Jan. 15, 2026 Min. Order, Empire Leaseholder LLC 
v. Burgum, No. 26cv4 (D.D.C.).
3 The Court gives fair notice to Defendants, however, that any above-ground construction over the next 
seven days that is not in compliance with my Amended Order is at risk of being taken down pending the 
resolution of this case. 
10 
Dep 't of Interior, No. 25-cv-4328 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 12, 2026) [Dkt. #55] (noting government's "'failure to 
explain or apply ... [the] stated national se-eurity mason"); Min. Order, Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum, 
No. 26-cv-4 (D.O.C. filed Jan. 15, 2026}. 
3 The Court gives fair notice to Defendants, however, that any above-ground construction over the next 
seven days that is. not in compliance with my Amended Order is at risk of being taken down pending the 
resolution of this case. 
Case 1:25-cv-04316-RJL     Document 72     Filed 04/16/26     Page 10 of 10

Passage view · GavelSight