A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily prolonged a halt on a lower court order that had blocked construction of a proposed White House ballroom, while directing the case back to a district court for further clarification.

In a brief, unsigned decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit continued an administrative stay of the earlier injunction through April 17. The move gives federal officials time to consider seeking intervention from the Supreme Court and allows the lower court to address unresolved factual questions.

At the center of the legal battle is a plan announced by President Donald Trump in July 2025 to construct a 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the site of the East Wing, financed by private contributions.

Court filings indicate that although officials had pledged to account for historic preservation concerns, the East Wing was torn down within days of an October announcement that construction had commenced.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed suit, arguing that the project proceeded without congressional approval and violated federal statutes.

On March 31, a district court judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding they were likely to prevail and issuing a preliminary injunction stopping further work, except for measures required to ensure the safety and security of the White House.

The federal government challenged that ruling, arguing the injunction could itself create security risks by prolonging vulnerabilities caused by the demolition and ongoing construction.

Officials noted that the site currently includes a large excavation area and planned installations tied to security infrastructure, including protective features and military-related systems.

The appellate panel did not rule on the substance of those arguments, instead highlighting lingering uncertainties about how the injunction aligns with security considerations.

Judges also pointed to contradictions in the government’s earlier statements, including claims that certain underground work could continue regardless of the ballroom’s design.

The panel further questioned whether delaying the project would cause meaningful additional harm, given that completion of the ballroom is not expected until 2028.

Rather than issuing a sweeping stay, the appeals court sent the case back to the district court, instructing it to clarify how its order accounts for security concerns during the appeals process. It also dismissed the government’s broader request for a stay as moot.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Neomi Rao wrote that the administration had shown it had the legal authority to move forward and that delaying construction posed significant security risks, which she said outweigh the plaintiffs’ objections related to preservation and appearance.

The case now returns to the district court for expedited review as the legal fight over the project continues.