Courts · Monday, August 31, 2026
Supreme Court stays injunction on White House East Wing ballroom construction
The File desk · Aug 31, 2026, 10:00 PM UTC
Status
Confirmed.
On Aug. 31, 2026, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned per curiam order in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation, No. 26A203, stayed a D.C. district-court preliminary injunction that would have halted above-ground construction of a new East Wing, including a ballroom. The Court did not decide whether the project is legal. It held the government is likely to show the Trust lacks Article III standing. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, writing that the construction “is likely unlawful.”
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a preliminary injunction that had blocked above-ground work on a new White House East Wing, including a ballroom. The unsigned per curiam order in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, No. 26A203, is reported at 609 U.S. ____ (Aug. 31, 2026).
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project,” the Court wrote. “We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.”
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. “Today this Court grants the Government’s request to stay that injunction and allow construction of the ballroom to go forward—not because that construction is legal, but on the ground that the Trust likely lacks Article III standing to challenge it,” he wrote. He added: “That construction is likely unlawful.”
The dissent pointed to 40 U.S.C. §8106. The Court did not decide that statute’s merits.
What is still unknown or disputed
- Whether a certiorari petition is timely filed.
- How far above-ground work has gone.
- The merits of 40 U.S.C. §8106, which the Court did not decide.
Primary sources
Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.
Source 1
National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, 609 U.S. ____ (Aug. 31, 2026) (per curiam)
Supreme Court of the United States · August 31, 2026
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf
Source 2
National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation, No. 26A203 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)
Supreme Court of the United States · August 31, 2026
“Today this Court grants the Government’s request to stay that injunction and allow construction of the ballroom to go forward—not because that construction is legal, but on the ground that the Trust likely lacks Article III standing to challenge it.” Also: “That construction is likely unlawful.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf