Spiegel Stuff: The Gavel: Trump DC landmark takeover reaches legal apex

By Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld | Wednesday, March 18

Trump DC landmark takeover reaches legal apex

President Trump's government real estate projects in the nation's capital are reaching an apex in court.

Environmental groups, a Democratic congresswoman and even golfers have sued.

Judges so far have largely declined to stop the president's projects, from rebuilding the Kennedy Center to constructing planned archway, from East Potomac Park to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

That may soon change.

On Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon heard the latest bid to halt construction of the new White House ballroom, planned for the site of the demolished East Wing.

He's twice before ruled for Trump. But on Tuesday, he seemed exceedingly skeptical of the project.

"There is no track record of this ever being done," Leon said, describing the White House as an "iconic symbol" of the nation and the president as a "steward" of the building, not its owner.

The ballroom challengers have accused Trump of attempting to shield the project from judicial review.

"What they can't do here is have it both ways," said Thaddeus Heuer, a lawyer for the preservationists.

Many lawsuits seeking to stop government projects focus on the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their projects.

Previously, Leon ruled that the ballroom challengers couldn't bring such a suit because Trump and the Office of the Executive Residence aren't agencies. And the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), another law that could've posed a roadblock, has never been an option because it carves out the White House grounds as an exception.

It leaves the ballroom challengers now hoping Leon will embrace their latest argument: the project simply isn't authorized by any statute on the books. The appointee of former President George W. Bush said he would aim to rule by the end of the month.

However, he signaled concern over the government's shifting authorities for the project, suggesting it's been an issue "from the beginning."

It's not the only way the ballroom has landed in court.

When Trump tore down the East Wing five months ago to make way for it, workers moved the rubble to East Potomac Park.

The park is located on a man-made island along the Potomac River, and much of it is a public golf course.

Trump wants to remake it so it can one day host championships. It would add to the growing list of first-time professional sporting events in D.C. already in the works: The president is preparing to host a UFC fight on the White House lawn in June, and he's authorized an IndyCar race in downtown Washington in August.

The D.C. Preservation League and two golfers claim the East Potomac plans violate various laws, including both NEPA and NHPA.

The Justice Department's strategy has emphasized that the project and others are still "concepts" that have yet to be turned into reality.

"Plaintiffs have no right to be involved in any review that has not even begun," the Justice Department wrote in response to the golfers.

That same argument is also unfolding in the administration's new push to drop a lawsuit concerning the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB). It houses offices for most White House staff and is located adjacent to the West Wing.

Trump during a November Fox News interview suggested he was working on repainting, repointing and cleaning the EEOB, even showing off renderings of the potential project.

"I don't even know if I'm going to do it yet," he said. "I mean, I'm getting costs from, I'm getting bids right now from painters."

As a cultural heritage firm tries to stop it, Trump's first comment may be his saving grace. The Justice Department has latched onto it, making the case that the lawsuit isn't ripe.

Same goes for the challenge to Trump's idea for a grand archway at Memorial Circle, located near the Potomac River at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.

Frank Lands, the National Park Service's (NPS) deputy director for operations, wrote in court filings last week that "preliminary discussions" have taken place, but nothing more.

"The proposal for construction of an Arch is in the conceptual phase," Lands wrote.

Just upstream on the Potomac, Trump's vision for Kennedy Center is moving full steam ahead.

Trump's name is now displayed on the building. And this week, the Kennedy Center board formally approved a two-year closure amid planned renovations. Trump just posted updated renderings on social media.

In the lead-up to the meeting, a judge ruled that the board had to allow Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) to attend. Beatty had expressed concerns she was being denied access, which the Kennedy Center rejected. The congresswoman later conceded the meeting invite was in her spam folder.

The judge ruled it wasn't clear that she had the authority to vote. But on Monday, she said she voiced her dissent at the meeting, nonetheless.

"We had a small exchange, let's say," she said on a press call of her interaction with Trump. "But for those who know me, I truly believe in adhering to the process and always clearly voicing your opinion, and I was able to do that."

"And he did not cut me off," the congresswoman added. "We had a few stares, but he did not cut me off."

Programming alert: Today, Wednesday 1 p.m. EDT – Join us for a live conversation and audience Q&A breaking down the biggest legal stories shaping Washington. Register here.

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).

Not already on the list? Subscribe here.

IN FOCUS

What next in Fed vs. DOJ; Iran highlights foreign threats

What's next for DOJ's probe of the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is all but certain to keep interest rates steady today. But the brewing storm around the institution is anything but.

As federal prosecutors probe the central bank's chair, Jerome Powell, a cloudburst of legal and political battles is underway.

A federal judge quashed two subpoenas served on the Fed's board of governors, court filings unsealed Friday show. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has faced Trump's ire before and now finds himself back in the eye of the legal fight over the president's monetary priorities.

"To preserve the integrity of the Judiciary, he should be removed from all cases pertaining to us, and suffer serious disciplinary action, as should numerous other Corrupt Judges," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The Justice Department's investigation into the Fed centers on a $2.5 billion renovation project on which Powell testified before Congress. Powell has suggested the investigation amounts to an effort to strongarm lower interest rates.

In rejecting the subpoenas, Boasberg found "abundant evidence" that the effort amounts to a pressure campaign. He accused the government of probing the Fed chair for an "unstated purpose: pressuring Powell to knuckle under."

The Justice Department responded with public rage. At a press conference Friday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro called Boasberg an "activist judge" and accused him of having "bathed (Powell) in immunity" without legal authority — an extraordinary move from a top prosecutor with a case in the secretive grand jury phase.

"For the first time, a judge is ruling that a grand jury subpoena — on its face, legal in all regards — can be ignored because a judge thinks the subject is beyond reproach," Pirro said Friday. "This is a decision that is untethered to the law."

Pirro vowed to appeal, and her office has already asked Boasberg to reconsider.

Trump doubled down against Boasberg in a TruthSocial post, saying he was "viciously and wrongfully blamed by, as usual, a Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge." He called Boasberg "a man who suffers from the highest level of Trump Derangement Syndrome."

It's nothing new for the judge, an appointee of former President Obama who joined Trump's enemies list last year after barring his administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador under a wartime law.

Republican demands for his impeachment only grew after it came to light that Boasberg signed off on nondisclosure orders preventing companies from telling GOP lawmakers that special counsel Jack Smith's team had seized their phone records.

He also oversees contentious legal fights including the lawsuit that followed "Signalgate," when top administration officials' war-planning group chat was allegedly leaked to The Atlantic's top editor.

As Trump rages at Boasberg, the Supreme Court holds the keys to another facet of the president's efforts at the Fed.

In January, they heard arguments over Trump's efforts to fire governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud. She contends her removal amounts to a bid by the president to exert more control over the central bank.

The court's next opinion day is Friday.

And today, the Fed will vote again on interest rates, with an expectation that they will remain the same as gas prices hike amid toiling over Iran's Strait of Hormuz. That will likely spark Trump's ire, who has aggressively wanted Powell to lower rates – sometimes to zero.

The Fed chair's term expires in May. The confirmation of his successor, however, may hinge on the outcome of the DOJ's probe.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has signaled he won't support any Trump Fed nominee until the investigation is resolved. The frontrunner is former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, whom the president nominated to replace Powell earlier this year.

"We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on," Tillis said Friday. "Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair."

Iran war highlights foreign-inspired threats

A string of attacks being investigated for foreign influence have turned attention to the threat climate in the U.S.

For years, all eyes have been on domestic threats with politically motivated violence on the rise. But the war with Iran poses a backdrop for the heightened risk of foreign-inspired attacks.

A synagogue in Michigan was attacked last week, the suspect a naturalized citizen from Lebanon whose family members were reportedly killed in an Israeli strike the night prior.

A shooting took place at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., last week, which the FBI has said is being investigated as an act of terrorism. The suspect pleaded guilty in 2016 to attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State.

And earlier this month, two people were charged in connection with an attempted attack at a protest and counterprotest near the New York City mayor's mansion, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed were "alleged ISIS-inspired terrorists."

It's a different threat than domestic violent extremism, which has dominated news cycles for several years now.

Domestic violent extremists (DVEs) are not inspired by foreign terrorist groups. They seek to further political or social goals through unlawful acts of violence. It's used interchangeably with domestic terrorism by the government.

Homegrown violent extremists (HVEs), on the other hand, do seek to further objectives promoted by foreign terrorist organizations. Still, they act independently of those groups and operate in the U.S.

Between 2013 and 2021, incidents of domestic terrorism increased by 357% in the United States.

Former FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in 2023 that the number of domestic terrorism investigations being conducted by the FBI had more than doubled since spring of 2020 — some 2,700 probes at the time. He described the top threats as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, significantly more people have been killed in attacks committed by native-born Americans than foreign-born attackers, according to data from the Cato Institute.

Of the 335 people killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since then, some 289 of them were killed by native-born Americans versus some 46 foreign-born attackers.

"The data are clear that foreign-born terrorism is a tiny risk, even during the periods when it is most elevated," Cato's Alex Nowrasteh, senior vice president for policy, wrote in the report.

However, foreign conflicts like the war in Iran can act as an accelerant.

The Department of Homeland Security wrote in its 2025 homeland threat assessment report that current events are used to "amplify existing narratives and justify violence."

The agency pointed to Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which spurred Israel's war in Gaza, as a recent major example that would "likely be referenced" in foreign terrorist organizations' messaging and contribute to the radicalization and mobilization of U.S.-based individuals.

SIDEBAR

5 top docket updates

RFK Jr.'s vaccine changes blocked: A federal judge ruled Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s remaking of a key vaccine advisory panel was unlawful, so none of its votes can stand. The ruling blocks Kennedy's reduction of recommended childhood immunizations.
SCOTUS takes up TPS: The Supreme Court agreed to review the Trump administration's authority to curtail the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, which provides legal protections to migrants from countries experiencing armed conflict or disaster. The administration has looked to end TPS for 13 of 17 countries designated for the program when it took office, arguing courts have no authority to intervene. Oral arguments will be the week of April 27. In the meantime, the justices refused to lift lower court orders keeping Syria and Haiti in TPS.
Trump's new tariffs set for April court showdown: Oral arguments on the legality of Trump's new tariffs have been scheduled for April 10 in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Trump imposed the 10 percent global levy under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court said he couldn't impose tariffs under an international emergencies law.
DC pipe bomb suspect claims Trump pardon cover: The man accused of planting two pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican national committee offices on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack says the sweeping clemency Trump bestowed on rioters extends to his alleged conduct.
Missouri's GOP-friendly map upheld: A Missouri judge ruled the state's new congressional map can stay in place ahead of the midterms. It's designed to give Republicans a pickup opportunity. Lawmakers passed the map last fall as part of the mid-decade redistricting war.

In other news

Sesame Street sues SeaWorld: The 45-year partnership between SeaWorld and Sesame Street is breaking down. The children's show sued SeaWorld, which operates the Sesame Place theme park chain, over accusations it delayed millions in royalties and launched a "unilateral retaliation campaign" after Sesame Street went to court to collect the payments. SeaWorld, now formally called United Parks & Resorts, told The Gavel it will "look forward to setting the record straight in court."
Roberts v. Robots: Some new behind-the-scenes on Chief Justice John Roberts' 2024 year-end report, which he dedicated to AI. Robert Dow, the chief justice's counselor (think of him like a chief of staff), revealed he had jokingly asked ChatGPT to make the initial draft. Dow then took it to his boss. Recounting the episode at the Library of Congress last week, Dow detailed that Roberts "looked at it and said: 'No.'"
Penn & Teller back death-row inmate: Entertainers Penn & Teller are backing death row inmate Charles Flores in his fight to wipe his murder conviction at the Supreme Court. Flores, who maintains his innocence, says a key witness was subjected to "investigative hypnosis." Penn & Teller penned an amicus brief calling it "junk science" and "precisely the type of deceptive practice" they feel duty-bound to expose.
Criminal charges for Kalshi: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) filed criminal charges against Kalshi, alleging the predictions market platform is "running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law."

PETITION PILE

Petitions to take up cases that the justices we are keeping a close eye on.

The Supreme Court returns for its March session on Friday, when it will meet behind closed doors to consider the next potential batch of cases to take up.

This week, let's start with an update on two battles we've covered previously:

When the justices began the term in October, we highlighted Smith v. Scott. Las Vegas police officers are seeking qualified immunity in an excessive force lawsuit brought by the daughter of Roy Scott.

The daughter called police to help her father, who was unarmed and in mental distress. He was not suspected of a crime. They restrained him, and Scott ultimately lost consciousness and died.

For months, the justices have been sitting on the officers' petition. This week marks the 15th consecutive conference it'll be on the list.

The delay is not unprecedented, but it's becoming more rare by the week.

Sometimes, petitions are relisted this long when the justices are working behind the scenes on a full-fledged opinion. It's known as a "summary" decision. The justices take up the case and immediately hand down their ruling without hearing oral arguments.

The second update concerns the pileup of Second Amendment challenges we've previously covered. The justices have been stalling on high-capacity magazine bans in Washington state and California. The cases are Gator's Custom Guns v. Washington and Duncan v. California.

Gun rights advocates think they now have an even stronger argument for the justices to take up the issue. The high court often hears disputes to resolve splits among lower judges, and the plaintiffs say a new decision from Washington, D.C.'s top local court cements such a divide.

"In short, the conflict is now clear, and the stakes remain exceptionally high," they wrote in a supplemental filing last week.

The plaintiffs are represented by prominent conservative Supreme Court attorneys Paul Clement and Erin Murphy.

Now, onto our normal watchlist additions:

Florida death row inmate: Death-row inmate Gary Whitton seeks to wipe his murder conviction over claims the state failed to correct a witness's false statement at trial. The Florida Supreme Court ruled the evidence against Whitton was "overwhelming" and rejected his claims. Federal judges have limited authority to disturb the state court's finding, but Whitton says the violation merits the justices' review. The case is Whitton v. Dixon.
Diabetes drug class-action: Takeda Pharmaceutical and Eli Lilly, which manufacture and sell diabetes drug Actos, are at the high court. They're appealing a judge's ruling certifying a class of "third-party payors," who claim the companies committed unlawful racketeering by concealing Actos's purported bladder cancer risk. The companies argue the judge overstepped in certifying the class, which would cover tens of thousands of payors who reimbursed millions of prescriptions. The case is Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund.

ON THE DOCKET

Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now:

Today

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration's policy that disqualifies parents, siblings and other family members from sponsoring unaccompanied children because of their lack of certain documentation or immigration status.

Thursday

The late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be honored with a meeting of the Supreme Court's Bar, followed by a special sitting of the court. The meeting will feature remarks by Solicitor General D. John Sauer and several judges, while the special session will include remarks from Sauer and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Chief Justice John Roberts will respond on the court's behalf.
The federal judge overseeing refunds of Trump's tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court will hold a closed-door hearing after the government submits a written update on their progress developing a system to process the $166 billion in returns.
A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold an enforcement hearing in a challenge alleging the Trump administration has run afoul of a settlement agreement that prevents the government from executing a final removal order for anyone whose asylum application has not been adjudicated by USCIS.

Friday

The Supreme Court is set to announce opinions.

Monday

The Supreme Court will announce orders.
The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether states can accept mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. The case is Watson v. Republican National Committee.

Tuesday

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether a person who unintentionally fails to disclose a pending legal claim in their bankruptcy proceedings is still barred from pursuing that claim. The case is Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction.
The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether the now-rescinded "metering" policy that turned back asylum seekers before crossing the border is legal. The case is Noem v. Al Otro Lado.
A federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in Anthropic's challenge to the Department of Defense decision to designate the company a supply chain risk.
A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a hearing on the Trump administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit asserting that women should be included in future military drafts.