Security Exception Is Not a Blank Check for Your Ballroom – RedState
When we last left the White House ballroom saga, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had sent the case back to Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. District Court for clarification. Leon previously issued a preliminary injunction halting construction of the ballroom, but included an exemption for “actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site, and to ensure the personal security of the President and his staff.”
The administration appealed, and the D.C. Circuit said it needed more information to evaluate whether a stay pending appeal was warranted.
SEE ALSO: New Twist: DC Circuit Sends White House Ballroom Case Back to Lower Court Over Security Concerns
Judge pauses Trump’s White House ballroom project
Judge Leon has now issued a modified order and opinion and “clarified” that he is not impressed by the administration’s national security argument regarding the ballroom. Leon ruled that the injunction still prohibits construction of the above-ground structure and flatly rejected the administration’s assertion that national security interests require the project to continue in its entirety. Work on underground security facilities can continue, according to the amended order, but “national security is not a blank check to continue otherwise illegal activities.”
In a nutshell, the amended order authorizes continued underground construction related to presidential and national security needs, including bunkers, waterproofing, utility infrastructure, and temporary protective measures, while expressly prohibiting any above-ground construction of the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
As noted, Leon’s opinion makes it clear (with exclamation points!) that he is not a fan of the administration’s argument on the issue:
Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from start to finish, falls within the safety and security exception and can therefore proceed unabated. This is neither a reasonable nor correct reading of my Order! My order previously directed the defendants (excluding the President) to “take all steps in favor of the physical development of the proposed ballroom.” Preliminary. Inj. Order at 2. The accompanying notice stated that “the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.” Memory. Op. to 1 (emphasis added). It is unbelievable to say the least, if not disingenuous, that Defendants now argue that my order does not stop the construction of a ballroom because of the safety and security exception!
He concludes thus:
The Court has taken seriously Defendants’ invocation of national security and presidential security throughout this case, which is why I included a safety and security exception in my initial order. But national security is not a blank check to pursue otherwise illegal activities, nor are belated assertions that the above-ground ballroom is “inseparable” from a set of security arrangements, see Defs. Opp’n at 3 p.m., this is not an opportunity for this Court to reassess the equities or reconsider the preliminary injunction! In my view, the safety and security exception, as clarified, allows for measures essential to national and presidential security to be implemented pending the final resolution of this matter and any appeal.
I will end by emphasizing that I have neither the desire nor the intention to be drawn into the role of construction manager. Contrary to Defendants’ suggestion, I never required Defendants to “seek and receive written approval” before proceeding with construction. Def. Opp’n to 4. The purpose of this opinion is simply to clarify that the injunction does, in fact, stop construction of the above-ground ballroom. I hope that Respondents will be able to implement my amended order in good faith and with the benefit of this clarification once my amended order takes effect. In recognition of the Defendants’ concerns and for the reasons stated in my view, see Mem. Op. at 34 years old, I will extend the temporary stay for seven (7) days after the issuance of this notice and the amended order.
Look, I may be slightly poking fun at the judge’s affection for the exclamation point, but I’m giving him some major style points for the use of “dragoned.” You don’t see this one often.
Regardless, he once again suspended his order from taking effect for seven days to allow the administration to appeal – which… it has already filed a notice of as I wrote this. Stay tuned!
Editor’s note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to end President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code STRUGGLE to benefit from 60% off your membership.
