A Justice Department attorney argued before a federal appeals court that judges lack the power to stop President Donald Trump from bulldozing the Statue of Liberty.
The argument highlights a significant legal debate regarding the limits of executive authority and whether the judiciary can block a president's specific directives. This clash comes amid a legal battle over the construction of a new White House ballroom.
During a hearing on June 5, 2026 [1], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments concerning the White House ballroom project. The proceedings focused on the scope of the president's authority over the White House grounds, a CNN reporter said [3].
Yaakov Ben-Gurion, an attorney for the Justice Department, used the Statue of Liberty as a rhetorical example to illustrate the government's position. Ben-Gurion said, "If the President wants to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the courts have no power to stop him" [1].
The DOJ presented this argument to counter a lawsuit seeking to halt the construction of the ballroom. The department's position is that the government cannot be barred by the courts from taking actions the president desires [2].
Legal analysts have questioned the logic of the Justice Department's approach. John Doe, a legal analyst, said the argument is "absurd and purely rhetorical" [2].
The case centers on whether the judiciary can impose restrictions on the president's use of federal property, specifically the White House grounds, or if such decisions fall exclusively under executive discretion.
“"If the President wants to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the courts have no power to stop him."”
This legal strategy reflects an attempt by the Justice Department to establish a broad interpretation of executive privilege and authority. By using an extreme hypothetical—the destruction of a national monument—the DOJ is attempting to set a precedent that would insulate the president's domestic projects and property decisions from judicial oversight, effectively arguing that certain executive actions are non-justiciable.
