A judge asked what speedy legal recourse people might have if the government decided to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. A government lawyer said he thought there was none.
For seven months, construction to replace the 123-year-old East Wing with what President Trump hopes will be a legacy-defining ballroom has been underway without interruption, in spite of a federal lawsuit.
On Friday, a federal appeals court panel heard arguments on whether any of it has been legal.
At this point, with the project surging forward, the case may serve as a test of whether courts will assert Congress’s powers to rein in Mr. Trump’s ambitions to rebuild federal Washington as much as it is an obstacle to the ballroom itself.
During the hearing, two members of the three-judge panel grilled Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department lawyer, over what legal authority, if any, Mr. Trump had to unilaterally bulldoze part of the White House without input from lawmakers.
For much of the morning, they appeared to bristle at Mr. Roth’s claims that the courts could not step in or halt progress, even if the construction itself was unlawful.
Mr. Roth argued that the National Park Service, which Congress affords some authority over federal lands, had the power to put up buildings in federal spaces in Washington, including the ballroom. He said that even if the government were to hypothetically demolish the Statue of Liberty, groups with a sentimental attachment to the monument would not automatically be able to sue over the decision.
“If the government decides to move very quickly and bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors — that was the first thing they saw coming to this country — but the government moved too fast, nothing can be done?” Judge Patricia A. Millett asked.