SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:
For perspective on the ongoing construction of a White House ballroom, we've called attorney Greg Werkheiser. He's a co-founder of the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners. It specializes in preserving historic properties, and it sometimes brings cases against the federal government. In fact, it represents the group suing the Kennedy Center over the planned renovations there. Greg, good morning.
GREG WERKHEISER: Good morning, Sacha.
PFEIFFER: As we just heard Deepa say, this project was first described as a ballroom to host dignitaries. As it came under legal attack, the administration has shifted more to describing its simultaneous importance underneath it as a bunker. Could you talk to us about the central legal question that the Supreme Court is weighing as it decides what to do about this case brought before the Supreme Court?
WERKHEISER: Well, this case is about who gets to decide what happens to the White House. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority over federal property, and Congress has also enacted a law requiring congressional approval for construction of this type in Washington. The president never asked Congress to authorize this ballroom, and Congress never did. The courts have drawn a pretty straightforward line. Legitimate underground security work may continue, but the above-ground ballroom cannot be built without congressional approval. And as the Court of Appeals put it, each president is a temporary tenant of the White House, not its owner.
PFEIFFER: So the Congress may decide the White House does need a ballroom and bunker. It's just that Congress simply must be asked first. That's the legal argument one side is making.
WERKHEISER: That's correct.
PFEIFFER: So this bunker being built below the ballroom, as you said, one judge has said, go ahead and build the bunker but pause on the ballroom. Is it practically feasible to work on the - underneath while pausing what's happening above?
WERKHEISER: Well, I'm not in the construction trade, so let me offer that disclaimer. But let me say that there may be a national security need for a new underground bunker. And the courts have taken that seriously. The injunction allows necessary underground security construction to continue. But national security does not answer the separate question of what can be built above that bunker. It does not dictate whether what sits above the bunker is a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, a reconstructed East Wing, or something else. So national security may explain the bunker. It does not authorize the ballroom.
PFEIFFER: The administration is describing this structure under - being constructed as a concrete and steel superstructure with hardened concrete missile-resistant columns. It's saying, in its words, it would be practically impossible to stop construction now. Do you think the ballroom is too far along to be stopped?
WERKHEISER: It's not. We've seen plenty of precedent legally in the United States, where courts have ordered buildings that have been constructed to be taken down or buildings that were taken down to be reconstructed. The White House has certainly made claims that the nature of the concrete they're using right now would make it virtually impossible to take it down. And that's the point. The administration is racing to have this built to attempt to outrace judicial oversight. That's not the way the law is supposed to work. So I've got confidence. I think a lot of people have confidence that if the court, in fact, does insist that the ballroom be taken down now or later, that that could be achieved.
PFEIFFER: And let's say there's a scenario where the ballroom under construction - which the Trump administration says is 65% complete, has to be taken down - could they then be told, rebuild the East Wing that you demolished?
WERKHEISER: They could be. I mean, ultimately, this is a conversation that is supposed to be had between the president and the U.S. Congress. We can only speculate as to why the president has not gone to Congress. There may be concerns that the answer to this relatively unpopular ballroom concept would be no. In which case, that kind of answers the question. But for now, the principal legal question is - does the president have the authority from Congress? If he doesn't, then everything needs to stand still until that's resolved.
PFEIFFER: And we have a construction zone on the White House while that legal case plays out. Greg, I hope maybe we'll have you back later as we hear how the Supreme Court rules. Thank you for your time this morning. Greg Werkheiser...
WERKHEISER: Thank you for your time.
PFEIFFER: ...Is a co-founder of the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
