‘Utter lawlessness’: Appeals court BLOCKS construction of White House ballroom — but Trump might get the last laugh

An appeals court ruled against the Trump administration and blocked the construction of the White House ballroom on the basis that it was not properly approved.

President Donald Trump has urged the speedy construction of the ballroom after the alleged attempt on his life at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in April.

‘The bold assertion that the Executive can act with utter lawlessness, destroying treasured national landmarks and harming the interests of individuals, and that no court can stop it flouts our constitutional order.’

On Friday, an appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that the president had acted “lawlessly” by demolishing the East Wing of the White House in order to build the ballroom without congressional approval.

“Executive actions that take control of that property out of the hands of the people’s representatives while irreparably harming the historical and visual architecture of perhaps the most prominent public building in the United States seriously intrude on the public interest,” two judges wrote in the joint majority opinion.

However, the administration has two weeks to seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the court does not intervene, above-ground construction at the White House would need to stop.

RELATED: Liz Warren launches investigation into Trump’s White House ballroom — the backlash is hilarious

The president has argued that security concerns necessitated the construction of the ballroom with increased law enforcement features. The appeals court found that these concerns could have been addressed without ignoring federal statutes on project funding.

“The bold assertion that the Executive can act with utter lawlessness, destroying treasured national landmarks and harming the interests of individuals, and that no court can stop it flouts our constitutional order,” the two judges said.

“While this court accords great weight and deference to invocations of national security and the safety of the President, such arguments are not an automatic get-out-of-law-free card,” they continued.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Neomi Rao agreed with the administration and said the security concerns outweighed the legal concerns brought up by the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The group praised the decision in a statement, citing the 250th anniversary of the country.