Justice Department tells Supreme Court it can demolish White House and Statue of Liberty in argument over ballroom

Background: the East Wing ballroom dispute

Roth said in Spanish that "El gobierno podría destruir la Estatua de la Libertad y la Casa Blanca" — that the government could destroy the Statue of Liberty and the White House — and that descendants of immigrants who passed through Ellis Island and enslaved people who built the White House would have no standing to sue. The translated statement was confirmed by two sources present in the courtroom.

The case before the justices is an appeal by Trump of lower-court rulings that have so far sided with preservation groups challenging the project. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is among the groups arguing that the ballroom, as planned, would unlawfully alter a protected historic site without congressional approval.

The legal question of standing

At issue is whether the plaintiffs have legal standing — the formal requirement that a party show it has been personally harmed — to bring the suit at all. Several justices probed the government's theory that only the president, as the occupant of the building, could claim injury from changes to the White House grounds.

Supporters of the project argue that the new ballroom is needed to host large state events that have long been held in temporary structures on the South Lawn. Opponents counter that the East Wing colonnade and adjacent spaces are integral to the building's neoclassical design and that no president should have unilateral authority to reshape them.

The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on a fight that has already prompted several rounds of litigation in federal district and appeals courts. A ruling on the standing question could determine whether the case proceeds on the merits or ends without a decision on the ballroom itself.

What happens next at the court

Beyond the legal mechanics, the moment captured a broader fight over how much leeway the executive branch should have to alter historic federal landmarks. Critics say the hypothetical answer exposes the legal logic the administration is pressing; defenders say it was an extreme hypothetical that does not reflect any actual plan.

The case now moves into the justices' private conference, where they will vote on a disposition and assign an opinion. A ruling is expected by the end of the court's term in late June or early July, barring any procedural twists.

The story was translated from English by an AP editor with the help of a generative artificial intelligence tool, according to a translator's note attached to the wire copy.

Whatever the court decides, the dispute is likely to continue in Congress, where lawmakers in both parties have begun questioning whether the White House should be reclassified or subject to additional review protections for major construction projects on its grounds.