A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put on hold a preliminary injunction issued a day earlier by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, granting the Justice Department’s request for interim relief while the appeal proceeds. The panel scheduled oral arguments for June 5 to determine whether construction should remain paused during the broader legal review.

The appeals court’s brief order did not address the underlying legal merits of the dispute, which centers on whether the executive branch had the authority to demolish the historic East Wing and proceed with new construction without explicit approval from Congress.

The lawsuit was filed in December by the National Trust for Historic Preservation against the Trump administration and several federal agencies. The group argued that the demolition of the East Wing and the planned ballroom project violated federal preservation laws and exceeded the authority of both the president and the National Park Service.

Judge Leon, in his earlier ruling, sided with the plaintiffs’ argument that the project could not proceed lawfully without congressional authorization, prompting the administration to seek immediate relief from the appeals court to avoid construction delays.

The White House has defended the project as a privately funded initiative backed by donors, describing it as part of a broader effort to modernize the presidential residence while enhancing security infrastructure.

Trump has repeatedly framed the ballroom as a signature addition to the White House complex.Neither the National Trust for Historic Preservation nor the White House responded immediately to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision issued late Friday.

The case highlights tensions between executive authority and statutory protections governing historic federal properties, with potential implications for how future administrations undertake structural changes to nationally significant sites.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade will consider lawsuits filed by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses seeking to block the tariffs, which took effect on February 24.

The plaintiffs contend the policy sidesteps a decision by the US Supreme Court that struck down a broad set of earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Trump administration has defended the tariffs as a lawful response to persistent trade imbalances, arguing that the United States’ long-standing deficit importing more goods than it exports justifies emergency measures.

The tariffs were enacted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits duties of up to 15% for a limited period in cases of significant balance-of-payments deficits or to prevent a sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar.

Plaintiffs argue that the provision is intended for short-term monetary crises and does not apply to routine trade deficits, which they say do not meet the statutory threshold.The legal dispute marks a further test of executive authority over trade policy, an area traditionally involving congressional oversight.

Trump has made tariffs a central element of his economic and foreign policy agenda in his second term, asserting broad unilateral powers to impose import duties.

The case follows a February 20 ruling by the Supreme Court that invalidated many of Trump’s earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the statute did not grant the authority he had claimed.

The current lawsuits do not challenge other tariffs imposed under more conventional legal frameworks, including duties on steel, aluminum and copper imports.