President Donald Trump was sued on Friday by preservationists asking a federal court to halt his White House ballroom project until it goes through multiple independent reviews and wins approval from Congress. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is asking the U.S. District Court to block Trump’s White House ballroom project, which already has involved razing the East Wing, until it goes through comprehensive design reviews, environmental assessments, public comments and congressional debate and ratification. The National Trust, a privately funded organization, argues that Trump, by fast-tracking the project, has committed multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, while also exceeding his constitutional authority by not seeking congressional approval for a project of such scale. “No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit states. “And no president is legally allowed to construct a ballroom on public property without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in.” No more work should be done, the Trust argues, until administration officials “complete the required reviews — reviews that should have taken place before the Defendants demolished the East Wing, and before they began construction of the Ballroom — and secure the necessary approvals.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not immediately respond to Associated Press questions about the lawsuit and the project, including whether the president had any intention of consulting Congress. Trump has emphasized since announcing his plans that he’s doing it with private funding, including his own money. But that would not necessarily change how federal laws and procedures apply to what is still a U.S. government project. Trump, a Republican, already has bypassed the federal government’s usual building practices and historical reviews with the East Wing demolition. He recently added another architectural firm for a ballroom that itself would be nearly twice the size of the White House before the East Wing’s demolition. Trump has said a ballroom is overdue for the White House, previously complaining that events were held outside under a tent because the East Room and the State Dining Room could not accommodate bigger crowds. Trump, among other complaints, said guests get their feet wet if it rains during such events. The White House is expected to submit plans for Trump’s new ballroom to a federal planning commission before the year ends, about three months after construction began. Will Scharf, who was named by Trump as chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, said at the panel’s monthly meeting last week that he was told by colleagues at the White House that the long-awaited plans would be filed in December. “Once plans are submitted, that’s really when the role of this commission, and its professional staff, will begin,” said Scharf, who also is one of the Republican president’s top White House aides. He said the review process would happen at a “normal and deliberative pace.”

A federal judge in Maryland ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia freed from immigration detention on Thursday while his legal challenge against his deportation moves forward, handing a major victory to the immigrant whose wrongful deportation to a notorious prison in El Salvador made him a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement must let Abrego Garcia go immediately. “Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority,” the judge wrote. “For this reason, the Court will GRANT Abrego Garcia’s Petition for immediate release from ICE custody.” The Department of Homeland Security was highly critical of the release order and vowed to oppose it, calling it “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat. "This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” said Tricia McLaughlin, the department’s assistant secretary. Messages seeking comment were left with Abrego Garcia’s attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the order. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, has an American wife and child and has lived in Maryland for years, but he originally immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. An immigration judge in 2019 ruled Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family. When Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported there in March, his case became a rallying point for those who oppose President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. under a court order. Since he cannot be deported to El Salvador, ICE has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries. His lawsuit in federal court claims Trump's Republican administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish Abrego Garcia over the embarrassment of his mistaken deportation to El Salvador. In her order releasing Abrego Garcia, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” The reference was made to the successive list of four African countries that officials had sought to remove Abrego Garcia to and submitted affirmations that Costa Rica had rescinded its offer to accept him — later determined to be untrue. “But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” the judge wrote. Xinis also dismissed the federal government's arguments that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a final order of removal, noting that order had not been filed. “Thus, Abrego Garcia’s request for immediate release cannot touch upon the execution of a removal order if no such order exists,” she wrote. Meanwhile, in a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia is petitioning to reopen his immigration case to seek asylum in the United States. Additionally, Abrego Garcia is facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive. His defense attorney in the Tennessee case, Sean Hecker, declined to comment. A judge in that case has ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held on the motion after previously finding some evidence that the prosecution against Abrego Garcia “may be vindictive.” The judge said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” The judge specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case.

The Trump administration must stop deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control of the troops to the state, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials who opposed President Donald Trump’s extraordinary move to use state Guard troops without Gov. Gavin Newsom's approval to further Trump's immigration enforcement efforts. But Breyer also put the decision on hold until Monday. The administration initially called up more than 4,000 California National Guard troops but that number had dropped to several hundred by late October. About 100 Guard members remained in the Los Angeles area as of Friday, with none on the streets, according to U.S. Northern Command. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson suggested the administration would appeal, saying in a statement that it looked forward to "ultimate victory on the issue.” “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots that local leaders like Newscum refused to stop,” she said, a pejorative moniker he has used to refer to the Democratic governor. Breyer rejected the administration's arguments that he could not review extensions of a Guard deployment and that it still needed Guard troops in Los Angeles to carry out federal law, saying the first claim was “shocking” and the second one bordered on “misrepresentation.” “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances,” he wrote. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” California argued that conditions in Los Angeles had changed since Trump first took command of the troops and deployed them in June following clashes between federal immigration officers and people protesting his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The Republican administration extended the deployment until February while also trying to use California Guard members in Portland, Oregon as part of its effort to send the military into Democratic-run cities over the objections of mayors and governors. It also sent some California National Guard troops to Illinois. In his ruling, Breyer noted attempts to use the state troops elsewhere, accusing the Trump administration of “effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops.” U.S. Justice Department lawyers said the administration still needed Guard members in the Los Angeles area to help protect federal personnel and property. The call up in June was the first time in decades that a state’s national guard was activated without a request from its governor and marked a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to carry out its mass deportation policy. The troops were stationed outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where protesters gathered and later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests. California sued, arguing that the president was using Guard members as his personal police force in violation of a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs. The administration said courts could not second-guess the president’s decision that violence during the protests made it impossible for him to execute U.S. laws with regular forces and reflected a rebellion, or danger of rebellion. Breyer initially issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to return control of the Guard members to California, but an appeals court panel put that decision on hold. After a trial, Breyer ruled in September that the deployment violated the law. Other judges have blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago.