Overview
In a contentious federal appeals court hearing on Friday, a Justice Department attorney suggested that the Trump administration could theoretically demolish the Statue of Liberty without facing legal challenges from citizens with cultural ties to the landmark. The argument emerged as the administration defends the construction of a planned White House ballroom.
The sun rises behind the Statue of Liberty on September 13, 2025, as seen from Jersey City, New Jersey.
Getty Images
Case Details
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments regarding the fate of a proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom. The case follows a lower court’s ruling that the project cannot proceed without explicit approval from Congress.
DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth argued that individuals aggrieved by architectural changes to the White House lack the legal standing to sue once demolition—such as the removal of portions of the East Wing—has already commenced.
Judge Patricia Millett challenged this logic, posing hypotheticals regarding the demolition of national landmarks. She questioned whether descendants of the enslaved people who built the White House could sue if the main mansion were destroyed; Roth maintained they could not, provided demolition had already begun.
Judge Millett criticized the government’s position, suggesting it essentially rewards the administration for moving “too fast” to prevent legal intervention. She then asked if this reasoning extended to the Statue of Liberty.
When asked if descendants of immigrants who first saw the Statue of Liberty upon arriving in America would be unable to sue if the government quickly bulldozed the monument, Roth agreed that they would have no legal recourse.
Current Status
The appeals court is currently deliberating whether to permit the ballroom’s construction to continue. The Trump administration contends that the project is too advanced to be halted by the judiciary and argues that any stop-work order must originate from Congress—where a previous attempt to block the project failed. The timeline for the court’s final ruling remains uncertain.
Public Reaction
The DOJ’s exchange with Judge Millett sparked widespread criticism across social media. Former federal prosecutor and Trump critic Joyce Vance expressed her dismay on X, stating, “There is nothing left of the Justice Department I worked at.”
Legal Background
The lawsuit was initiated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which asserts that the executive branch lacks the authority to build the ballroom without congressional consent. The suit also includes claims from Patricia Hoagland, a historical preservation scholar and National Trust member. Hoagland argues that the modifications cause “permanent and irreparable harm” to the White House and President’s Park, negatively impacting her aesthetic and cultural interests.
In March, Judge Richard Leon ruled that Hoagland had sufficient standing to sue, noting that she successfully demonstrated how her interests in the enjoyment of the grounds would be irreparably injured. Judge Leon further ordered a halt to construction, stating that the National Trust was likely to prevail because no existing statute grants the President the level of authority being claimed.
