by
Heather
Diehl/Getty
Images)
You
know
what
they
say
about
giving
an
inch.
The
Trump
administration
apparently
took
Judge
Richard
Leon’s
thoughtful
national-security
carve-out
in
his
preliminary
injunction
order
—
the
one
that
let
construction
continue
only
for
genuine
safety
measures
—
and
decided
it
meant
the
whole
ballroom
project
could
barrel
along
unimpeded.
Judge
Leon
had
a
decidedly
different
take.
If
you’ve
been
following
along
at
home
(and
if
you
haven’t,
this
saga has
been
going
on
for
months
—
Judge
Leon
was
side-eyeing
the
government’s
constitutional
theory
back
in
January),
this
is
the
case
where
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation
sued
to
stop
Trump’s
$400
million
White
House
ballroom
—
the
one
being
built
on
the
rubble
of
the
demolished
East
Wing,
with
zero
congressional
authorization
and
a
funding
structure
Leon
once
memorably
called
a
“Rube
Goldberg
contraption.”
On
March
31st, Leon
dropped
his
preliminary
injunction and
told
the
administration
that,
surprising
no
one
who
had
been
paying
attention,
presidents
don’t
get
to
freestyle
renovations
on
national
landmarks
without
an
act
of
Congress.
But
Leon,
cognizant
of
the
genuine
security
complexities
at
any
active
White
House
construction
site,
included
a
safety-and-security
exception.
It
was
a
reasonable
gesture.
The
administration
promptly
tried
to
drive
a
90,000-square-foot
ballroom
through
it.
This
judge
is
having
exactly
zero
of
this
nonsense,
writing,
“It
is,
to
say
the
least,
incredible,
if
not
disingenuous,
that
Defendants
now
argue
that
my
Order
does
not
stop
ballroom
construction
because
of
the
safety-and-security
exception!”
In
today’s
opinion,
available
below,
Leon
clarified
and
amended
his
injunction
—
and
he
was
not
subtle
about
his
irritation
with
the
government’s
reading
of
his
original
order.
Right
out
of
the
gate:
Defendants
argue
that
the
entire
ballroom
construction
project,
from
tip
to
tail,
falls
within
the
safety-and-security
exception
and
therefore
may
proceed
unabated.
That
is
neither
a
reasonable
nor
a
correct
reading
of
my
Order!
Gotta
love
a
judge
that
is
unafraid
of
the
exclamation
mark!
This
is
a
federal
district
judge
—
a
George
W.
Bush
appointee,
lest
we
forget,
not
exactly
a
card-carrying
member
of
the
so-called
“Resistance”
—
using
the
rhetorical
equivalent
of
a
buzzer
on
the
administration’s
argument.
So
what
does
the
amended
order
actually
do?
Leon
drew
a
clean
line:
above-ground
construction
of
the
proposed
ballroom
is
stopped.
Below-ground
construction,
including
actual
national
security
facilities
like
bunkers,
bomb
shelters,
military
installations,
and
medical
facilities,
can
proceed.
Construction
necessary
to
protect
the
structural
integrity
of
the
White
House,
handle
waterproofing,
secure
the
site,
and
cover
the
underground
elements
can
also
move
forward.
What
cannot
move
forward
is
the
ballroom
itself.
This
is
where
it
gets
really
delicious
for
anyone
who
has
been
watching
this
case.
The
administration
previously
told
the
court
that
the
below-ground
and
above-ground
elements
of
the
project
were
independent
of
each
other.
They
said
the
underground
work
was
“driven
by
national
security
concerns
independent
of
the
above-grade
construction.”
They
even
assured
the
court
the
below-ground
elements
didn’t
“lock
in”
the
above-ground
design.
Leon
quotes
this
back
to
them
with
what
I
can
only
describe
as
judicial
relish.
Defendants’
latest
representations
that
“the
entire
project
advances
critical
national-security
objectives
as
an
integrated
whole”
are
in
direct
conflict
with
Defendants’
prior
representations
that
the
above-ground
and
below-ground
portions
of
the
project
were
“independent
of”
one
another.
Leon
used
the
word
“brazenly”
to
describe
the
government’s
latest
pivot.
That’s
gotta
sting.
The
administration
also
threw
in
the
argument
that
security
features
like
missile-resistant
steel
columns,
drone-proof
roofing,
and
bulletproof
windows
bring
the
whole
above-ground
structure
within
the
security
exception.
Leon
dispatched
this
efficiently,
noting
that
those
features
are
still
months
or
years
away
from
being
installed
—
so
any
claim
of
“irreparable
harm”
from
not
having
them
right
now
is
belied
by
the
administration’s
own
admission
that
the
project
won’t
be
done
until
2028.
On
the
national
security
classified
declarations
—
four
of
them
—
that
the
government
submitted
ex
parte?
Leon
reviewed
all
of
them.
They
apparently
shed
no
light
on
why
an
above-ground
ballroom
is
a
national
security
necessity.
If
the
government
had
something
classified
and
convincing,
it
didn’t
make
it
into
those
declarations.
Judge
Leon
also
has
a
line
towards
the
end
of
the
opinion
that
low
key
calls
out
a
lot
of
Trump
2.0
justifications
for
doing
whatever-the-fuck
they
want
to
do:
“national
security
is
not
a
blank
check
to
proceed
with
otherwise
unlawful
activity.”
Say
it
louder
for
the
people
in
the
back.
Leon
notes
that
he
has
taken
the
national
security
concerns
seriously
throughout
this
case
—
which
is
why
the
exception
exists
in
the
first
place
—
but
judicial
deference
is
not
judicial
abdication.
He
cites
precedent
standing
for
the
proposition
that
deference
applies
“so
long
as
the
government’s
declarations
raise
legitimate
concerns,”
not
as
a
magic
incantation
that
ends
all
scrutiny.
Leon
also
took
a
moment
to
note,
with
what
I
imagine
was
a
certain
weary
exasperation,
that
he
has
“no
desire
or
intention
to
be
dragooned
into
the
role
of
construction
manager.”
He
never
required
the
administration
to
get
written
pre-approval
for
individual
construction
decisions.
The
point
of
the
opinion,
he
explains
patiently,
is
simply
to
clarify
that
the
injunction
does,
in
fact,
stop
the
ballroom.
That
this
needs
clarification
at
all
says
something.
The
DOJ
has
its
appeal
already
pending
at
the
D.C.
Circuit,
which
previously
remanded
the
case
for
exactly
this
clarification,
so
we’ll
see
what
the
Circuit
does
now
that
Leon
has
given
them
what
they
asked
for.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].