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.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.