Blue Press Journal

Tag: federal appeals court

  • Federal Appeals Court Halted Construction on Trump’s Ballroom Project

    Blue Press Journal

    WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has paused construction on President Donald Trump’s budgeted 400 million-dollar project of the White House ballroom. The court ruled that building the ballroom should be immediately stopped from proceeding with any jobs “above ground”, including features the government claims are necessary security measures.

    Donald Trump speaking at a podium in the White House ballroom with an audience listening
    .

    On Friday, a 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold a preliminary injunction against the President. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, an organization that protects buildings, filed the injunction in December 2025 after the administration began demolition of the East Wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot subterranean ballroom not approved by Congress.

    Patricia Millett’s and Bradley Garcia’s opinions, in which they ruled in favor of preservation, were joined by judges who were appointed by President Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They stated that the Constitution does not permit presidential edicts to dictate the use of federal resources.

    They continued, “whether a large ballroom should be built…is a decision for Congress, not the President” due to the fact that the Constitution grants spending authority over the federal assets to lawmakers, not the executive branch, despite the security reasons cited by the administration.

    However, the decision to halt the work was only made official for two weeks in order to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Neomi Rao, who was nominated by President Trump, filed a dissenting opinion in response to the majority’s ruling. She stated that the injunction which stopped the work was an act of judicial activism.

    “By stepping in and taking control over something as monumental as the White House, the district court engaged in judicial activism,” she wrote. “Courts shouldn’t be running building projects”

    The administration’s original plan was to decommission the East Wing while keeping the West Wing as a separate unit. However, the White House Complex’s budget requires funding beyond the president’s official salary so the administration argued that the entire wing be demolished to make way for the expansion of the subterranean chamber.

    Furthermore, the administration claims that the ballroom project is part of larger security upgrades to the complex.

    President Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the decision in his Truth Social page. He stated that the ruling was “politically motivated and completely illegal.” He argued that not completing the ballroom project endangered future presidents, staff, diplomats, and the general public.

    The two-week pause in the construction of the ballroom project means that the future of the project depends on whether or not Trump’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is granted.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Appeals Court Upholds $83.3 Million Defamation Judgment Against Trump

    Blue Press Journal (DC) – In a significant ruling, a federal appeals court has upheld a civil jury’s decision requiring former President Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll, a longtime advice columnist who accused him of sexual assault. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s appeal of the defamation award, finding that the “jury’s damages awards are fair and reasonable.”

    The decision stems from a trial last year in which a Manhattan jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault. Carroll had accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in 1996. Although the jury concluded that Trump had not committed rape as defined under New York law, they did find him liable for sexual assault and awarded Carroll $5 million in compensation for the alleged attack and Trump’s subsequent statements denying it.

    The bulk of the $83.3 million award, however, was for defamation. The jury found that Trump’s repeated social media attacks against Carroll, in which he denied her allegations and questioned her credibility, constituted defamation. The appeals court upheld this finding, determining that Trump’s statements were not protected by the First Amendment and were, in fact, liable for damages.

    The ruling is a victory for Carroll, who argues that Trump’s attacks harmed her character and credibility. It also sets a precedent for victims of sexual assault and defamation, emphasizing the need to hold powerful individuals accountable for their actions.

    Trump’s lawyers had argued that the defamation award was excessive and that the jury’s findings were flawed. However, the appeals court rejected these arguments, finding that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence and that the damages award was reasonable.

    The case highlights the ongoing legal battles between Trump and his accusers. The former president has faced allegations of sexual misconduct and often uses social media to discredit them. The appeals court’s ruling underscores that such tactics can have serious consequences, affirming victims’ rights to seek justice and compensation.