By the Court's Own Logic, the Arch Cannot Legally Be Built

In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the order stopping above-ground ballroom construction — and the reasoning strikes directly at the proposed 250-foot arch at Memorial Circle.

The court's central holding rests on a law passed in 1912 and still on the books: no building or structure may be erected on federal parkland in Washington, D.C. without the express approval of Congress. The administration argued that this law doesn't apply to the President. The court rejected that flatly: the law means what it says, no matter who is building.

Here is why that matters to us. The Arch would stand on exactly the kind of land the law covers — federal parkland in the District, managed by the National Park Service — and Congress has never authorized it. Not in any bill, ever. So as of today, under the controlling court decision, the Arch cannot legally be built. A group of Vietnam veterans has already filed suit making precisely this argument.

But this is not over, and no one should relax. The Arch can still happen four ways:

1. Congress could authorize it with a single sentence slipped into a must-pass spending bill this fall — the cleanest fix for the White House, and the one to watch.
2. The Supreme Court will review the ballroom case within weeks and could weaken today's ruling, or make it much harder for ordinary citizens to sue at all.
3. Construction could simply start. This administration demolished the East Wing in three days, and once concrete is poured, courts hesitate to order teardowns.
4. Litigation is slow while building is fast.