A Justice Department lawyer just told federal judges that if the government bulldozed the Statue of Liberty fast enough, “nothing can be done” to stop it.
Story Snapshot
- A Department of Justice attorney argued in court that no one could sue to stop a hypothetical rapid demolition of the Statue of Liberty.[1][4]
- The claim came as the Biden–Trump Justice Department defended Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project by arguing courts cannot halt it.[1][4]
- Appeals court judges pressed the government’s sweeping view that only Congress, not the courts, could rein in an unlawful executive construction project.[1][4]
- The exchange raises alarms about judicial power, historic preservation, and how quickly government can make irreversible changes with no remedy.[1][4]
DOJ’s Statue of Liberty Remark Stuns the Courtroom
During oral arguments at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth was pressed on whether courts could stop President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project if it violated federal law.[1][4] Judge Patricia Millett asked directly whether any court, including the Supreme Court, could halt the ballroom. Roth answered “Yes,” insisting that judges lacked power to block it.[4]
Judge Millett then tested that logic with a stark hypothetical: if the federal government “moved very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty,” could people whose ancestors saw it on arrival to America do anything in court.[1][4] Roth replied, “I think that’s right, yes,” confirming that under his redressability theory “nothing can be done” once the government acts fast enough.[2][4] Reporters present described audible gasps in the courtroom as the Justice Department embraced a scenario where Americans have no judicial recourse.[4]
Ballroom Battle: Can Courts Stop an Unlawful Project?
The underlying case involves Trump’s plan to build a large White House ballroom complex after the demolition of the historic East Wing, a project justified in part on national security grounds.[1][4] Preservation advocates sued, arguing the administration bypassed required approvals and violated federal historic protection laws.[1][2] The Justice Department responded that the plaintiff lacked standing because courts could not effectively remedy the alleged harm now that demolition had occurred and construction advanced.[1][4]
Roth told the panel that even from “day one” it would have been improper for a court to enjoin the ballroom project, claiming the relevant statute does not authorize judicial intervention to stop presidential “improvements.”[4] He argued that if a court ultimately found the project unlawful, the remedy must come from Congress rather than from judges issuing an injunction.[1][4] That position would sharply narrow the role of the judiciary in checking unlawful executive building projects on federal property managed by the National Park Service, which also oversees the Statue of Liberty.[2]
Judges Push Back on Claims of Judicial Powerlessness
The appeals panel, which includes judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, showed visible skepticism toward the idea that courts are simply powerless.[1][4] Judge Millett and Judge Bradley Garcia pressed Roth on why a president’s unilateral construction project could continue even if a court concluded it violated federal law.[1][4] Garcia noted that the cited statute authorizes repairs but “does not say the president is authorized to make improvements,” suggesting the administration may be outside its legal lane.[4]
Earlier in the litigation, a federal district judge had already ordered a halt to the ballroom construction, finding enough legal basis to justify an injunction before the appeals court stepped in.[1][4] The D.C. Circuit then administered a stay that allowed work to continue while it reviews the case.[1][4] That sequence directly contradicts the Justice Department’s sweeping claim that courts cannot act, because at least one judge already did. The live dispute now centers not on whether courts have power in the abstract, but on how far that power can reach once demolition and construction are underway.[1][4]
What This Means for Liberty, Landmarks, and Executive Power
Legal experts note that the Justice Department’s argument fits a recurring pattern: when the government moves quickly, it later claims the damage is “non-redressable” and beyond judicial repair.[1][2] In this case, that doctrine was pushed to an extreme by tying it to the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of immigration, freedom, and America’s promise to future generations.[1][2] Critics argue that if the government can erase such landmarks with no court able to intervene, the constitutional checks and balances that protect citizens are left dangerously hollow.
You don't know the half of it. How can you focus strategically if your shocked at anything the Joker does by now Trump could also tear down the Statue of Liberty, DOJ argues in defense of White House ballroom – POLITICO https://t.co/xVFjYe4IN6
— Justin Thyme (@JThyme20147) June 6, 2026
Beyond the ballroom and the Statue of Liberty hypothetical, the exchange highlights a deeper struggle over who really has the final say when presidents or bureaucrats push controversial projects through federal agencies.[1][2] If courts accept the idea that Congress is the only remedy even when laws are broken, everyday Americans are effectively sidelined, and rapid, irreversible actions become a governing strategy.[1][2] For voters worried about government overreach, that is the real warning light flashing underneath the headline-grabbing quote.
Sources:
[1] Web – DOJ Lawyer Argues in Court That Trump Could Demolish Statue of Liberty …
[2] Web – DOJ argues Trump could ‘bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty during White …
[4] YouTube – Trump’s DOJ Argues They Could Tear Down The Statue …
