2026-06-05T17:53:49.790Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/politics/white-house-ballroom-appeals-court-hearing
- 联邦上诉法院尖锐质疑特朗普政府提出的“任何法院都无法叫停白宫宴会厅项目”的主张。
- 司法部辩称，即便法院裁定建设行为违法，也无权下令拆除宴会厅。
- 两名法官对政府在未经国会批准的情况下继续施工的法律依据表示怀疑。
本文由AI生成摘要，并经CNN编辑审核。
周五，在一场考验总统权力的关键听证会上，联邦上诉法院就唐纳德·特朗普总统未经国会批准在白宫修建大型宴会厅的计划提出了尖锐质疑。
这场在美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院三名法官组成的合议庭面前进行的长达两小时的听证会，是该项目长期法律纠纷中的最新焦点。尽管法院一直对该项目的合法性持怀疑态度，但这座近9万平方英尺的活动空间的建设仍在继续。
政府正请求该合议庭无限期暂停下级法院的一项裁决，该裁决称，在国会明确批准该项目之前，特朗普不得继续进行宴会厅的地上施工。
今年早些时候，美国地区法官理查德·利昂作出了上述裁决，上诉法院于4月将该裁决冻结，允许特朗普目前继续进行建设。最近几周，新宴会厅的地上部分已经在原东翼的场地上升起，该区域在全国顶级历史保护组织于12月提起诉讼前近两个月就已被完全拆除。
近几个月来，个人和团体为阻止特朗普在第二任期内推行的个人偏好项目而提起了近10起诉讼，本案便是其中之一。其他诉讼挑战的还包括总统想要重新命名肯尼迪中心、修建一座巴黎凯旋门的美国复刻版以及将倒影池漆成“美国国旗蓝”等计划的合法性。
以下是从周五听证会中了解到的关键信息：
当司法部律师敦促上诉法院推翻利昂的裁决时，明确表示即便政府在本轮诉讼乃至后续最高法院诉讼中败诉，司法部律师也认为任何法院都无权下令特朗普拆除宴会厅。
“我有一个直截了当的问题：该法院、本院乃至最高法院——都无权叫停这座建筑的修建？”前总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的法官帕特里夏·米利特询问司法部律师亚科夫·罗斯，罗斯迅速回应：“是的。”
“这一切何时已成定局？是在拆除行动开始之时？还是在你方开展地下工程之时？”法官问道，“法院何时会无法叫停这个项目？”
“我认为即便在诉讼提起的第一天就下达禁令也是不当的，”罗斯说道，他指的是国家历史保护信托基金提起诉讼的当天。
“如果政府的行为完全违法，也无法被制止？”米利特问道，罗斯回答：“基于当前的法律理论，我认为确实如此。”
他接着表示，他认为只有国会法案才能阻止这项建设，法院在这场宴会厅相关的争端中没有独立的介入角色。
信托基金的律师塔德·奥尔随后抓住这一论点，称其与1803年确立司法审查权的标志性最高法院判例相冲突。
“根据《马伯里诉麦迪逊案》，明确阐明法律是什么是司法部门的专属职权。而政府的立场显然是，即便存在此类违法行为，法院也永远无法制止。”
“这完全是错误的，”奥尔说道，“这正是法院的职责所在。”
https://www.cnn.com/
特朗普总统为不断上涨的宴会厅造价辩护
1:36 • 来源：CNN
特朗普总统为不断上涨的宴会厅造价辩护
1:36
“快速行动，打破常规”
米利特在周五的听证会上尤为好奇，曾一度就罗斯的论点发起抨击，罗斯认为，在政府行动已经发生后，质疑该行动的法律门槛要高得多。
特朗普在这场纠纷中的策略之一，就是质疑国家历史保护信托基金是否具有提起诉讼的法律权利——即所谓的“诉讼资格”。特朗普等人辩称，该团体所称因东翼被拆除和大型宴会厅建设所遭受的损害不足以赋予其诉讼资格，这意味着该案会因技术原因败诉。
罗斯辩称，如果该案在东翼去年秋天被拆除前提起，他们的主张会比在白宫该区域被夷平近两个月后提出的主张有力得多。
米利特表示，政府的立场是“快速行动，打破常规，之后便无人具备诉讼资格”。
她随后提出了一个假设场景：特朗普决定迅速推倒自由女神像。
“那些祖先——这是他们来到这个国家时第一眼看到的东西——但政府行动太快了，（他们）无法（对其发起质疑）？”法官问道。
“我认为确实如此，是的，”罗斯说道。
在回应米利特的“快速行动，打破常规”的说法时，罗斯提出，特朗普早在拆除工程开始前数月就已预告了宴会厅的计划。
“他们没有在8月、9月、10月或11月提起诉讼，”他说。
合议庭成员之一、特朗普任命的法官内奥米·拉奥对总统在这方面的论点表示同情。在今年该案不同阶段的一项命令中，她曾表示她认为信托基金不具备提起诉讼的资格，并在周五重申了这一观点。
拉奥还提到了东翼替代项目中非宴会厅用途的部分。
“总统谈到了宴会厅下方及建筑本身的国家安全利益，”拉奥说道。
“另一方面，信托基金的一些担忧只是每月路过一次的人的审美顾虑，”她说道，指的是信托基金董事会一名成员的说法，该成员称白宫的改动对她造成了“审美伤害”。
本案的争议焦点在于，政府作为该项目法律依据所援引的一系列联邦法规，是否真的赋予了特朗普所声称的权力。
利昂法官表示没有，周五合议庭的多数成员似乎准备同意这一观点。
前总统乔·拜登任命的法官布拉德利·加西亚对特朗普的论点提出质疑，特朗普称一项允许国家公园管理局“促进和规范国家公园系统使用”的法律授权了该项目。
“你必须承认，该法律并未明确授予任何建设权限，”加西亚曾说道。
加西亚也不相信政府援引的另一项法律——授予特朗普对白宫进行日常维护的权力——能为他的宴会厅项目提供法律依据。
“他被授权对白宫进行250万美元的维修改造。这不可能成为拆除和更换部分建筑的权力来源，”他说道。
这位法官似乎尤其关注另一项法律：在华盛顿特区联邦土地上建造的任何建筑都需要国会批准。他表示，如果法院仅从该法律孤立来看，“此案就到此为止了”。
米利特也向罗斯提出了尖锐的问题，她曾说道：“你需要在某个地方找到授权依据。”
信托基金方面则敦促上诉法院维持利昂的裁决，并解除上诉法院在法律纠纷期间对该裁决施加的临时冻结。
“国会有权参与其中，并明确规定你们可以做什么，”他告诉法庭，“国会可以批准修建宴会厅。”
本文已更新，补充了听证会的更多细节。
Takeaways from the appeals court hearing on the White House ballroom project
2026-06-05T17:53:49.790Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/politics/white-house-ballroom-appeals-court-hearing
- A federal appeals court sharply questioned the Trump administration’s claim that no court could stop the White House ballroom project.
- The Justice Department argued that even if construction is ruled unlawful, courts lack authority to order the ballroom torn down.
- Two judges appeared skeptical of the administration’s legal justification for building without congressional approval as construction continues.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
President Donald Trump’s push to construct a massive ballroom at the White House without congressional approval was sharply questioned by a federal appeals court on Friday during a high-stakes hearing in a case testing the president’s power.
The two-hour-long hearing before a three-judge panel of the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest flashpoint in a protracted legal fight over the project. Work has continued on the nearly 90,000-square foot event space even as courts have looked skeptically at the legality of it.
The administration is asking the panel to indefinitely pause a lower-court ruling that said Trump could not continue with above-ground work on the ballroom until lawmakers explicitly bless the project.
That ruling, issued earlier this year by US District Judge Richard Leon, was frozen by the appeals court in April, permitting Trump to move ahead with construction for now. In recent weeks, above-ground parts of the new space have risen on the site of the former East Wing, which was fully demolished nearly two months before the nation’s top historic preservation group sued in December.
The case is one of nearly 10 brought in recent months by individuals and groups seeking to stop pet projects pursued by Trump in his second term. Other challenges question the lawfulness of the president’s desire to rename the Kennedy Center, erect an American version of Paris’ l’Arc de Triomphe and paint the Reflecting Pool “American Flag Blue.”
Here’s what to know from Friday’s hearing:
As a Justice Department attorney urged the appeals court to reverse Leon’s ruling and made clear that even if the administration loses during this round of wrangling and again before the Supreme Court, the DOJ attorney didn’t think any court would have the power to order Trump to tear down the ballroom.
“I’m asking you a straightforward question: That court, this court, the Supreme Court – no court could stop the building of this?” Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, asked DOJ lawyer Yaakov Roth, who quickly responded, “Yes.”
“When did it become a fait accompli? Was it when the destruction happened? Was it when you started doing the underground work?” the judge asked. “When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?”
“I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on day one,” Roth said, referring to the day the lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation was filed.
“If this were complete lawlessness by the government, it couldn’t be stopped?” Millett asked, to which Roth replied: “On these theories, I think that’s right.”
He went on to say that he thought construction could only be frustrated by an act of Congress and that courts had no independent role to play in disputes over the ballroom.
Tad Heuer, an attorney for the Trust, later seized on that argument and said it conflicted with a landmark 1803 Supreme Court case that established the power of judicial review.
“Under Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is. And the government’s position, apparently, is that even a lawless action of this type could never be stopped by the court.”
“That is entirely wrong,” Heuer said. “That’s exactly the court’s job.”
https://www.cnn.com/
President Trump defends rising ballroom costs
1:36 • Source: CNN
President Trump defends rising ballroom costs
1:36
‘Move fast and break things’
Millett, who was especially inquisitive during Friday’s hearing, at one point skewered Roth over his argument that the bar for being able to challenge a government action is much higher after it’s already occurred.
Much of Trump’s strategy in the dispute has been to question whether the National Trust has the legal right – known as “standing” – to bring its lawsuit. Among other things, the president has argued that the harm the group says it has suffered from the demolition of the East Wing and construction of the massive ballroom is not sufficient to give it standing, which would mean the case would fail on technical grounds.
Had the case been brought before the East Wing was demolished last fall, Roth argued, their claims would be much stronger than the ones that were raised nearly two months after that part of the White House was flattened.
The government’s position, Millett said, was “move fast and break things and then nobody has standing.”
She later raised a hypothetical in which Trump decided to quickly bulldoze the Statue of Liberty.
“The people whose ancestors – that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast – nothing can be done (by them to challenge it)?” the judge asked.
“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth said.
Pushing back on Millett’s “move fast and break things” assertion, Roth posited that Trump had previewed his plans for the ballroom many months before demolition got underway.
“They did not sue in August or September or October or November,” he said.
One panel member, Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao, was sympathetic to the president’s arguments on this front. In an order this year during a different stage in the case, she said she believed the Trust lacked standing to bring the challenge, and she repeated that view on Friday.
Rao also brought up the non-ballroom purposes of the East Wing replacement project.
“The president has talked about the national security interests,” below the ballroom and in the structure itself, Rao said.
“On the other side, the Trust has some aesthetic concerns of someone who walks past once a month,” she said, referring to a member of the Trust’s board who has said the changes to the White House have caused an “aesthetic injury” to her.
At issue in the case is whether a series of federal statutes the government is leaning on as legal justification for the project actually give Trump the authority he claims to have.
Leon said they did not, and a majority of the panel on Friday appeared ready to agree with that view.
Judge Bradley Garcia, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, questioned Trump’s argument that a law permitting the National Park Service to “promote and regulate the use of the National Park System,” authorized the project.
“You have to agree it doesn’t give express authority to construct anything,” Garcia said at one point.
Garcia also seemed unpersuaded that another law the government has invoked, which gives Trump the power to undertake regular maintenance of the White House, gave him the legal right to pursue his ballroom project.
“He’s authorized to make $2.5 million of maintenance changes to the White House. This cannot be a source of authority for demolishing and replacing part of the construction,” he said.
The judge seemed especially interested in a separate law that says anything erected on federal land in Washington, DC, needed to be approved by lawmakers. He said if the court just looked at that law in isolation, “that’s the end of the case.”
Millett, too, poised sharp questions to Roth, saying at one point, “You need to have an authorization somewhere.”
For its part, the Trust urged the appeals court to keep Leon’s ruling intact and lift the temporary pause it placed on it while the legal wrangling plays out.
“Congress is right to be able to be involved and say here is exactly what you can do,” he told the court. “Congress can allow a ballroom to be built.”
This story has been updated with additional details from the hearing.