This is the entirety of 40 U.S. Code § 8106 : Buildings on reservations, parks, or public grounds:
Seems pretty clear.
Before this new lawsuit, I thought that the ballroom was only illegal if the contributors failed to fund the whole project, in which case it would be a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which requires government employees to limit spending to what Congress appropriated. But I now see the ballroom is illegal regardless.
I suppose SCOTUS will find a way to avoid enforcing the law. Perhaps they will say that no one has standing to sue except Congress, since this law gives a right to Congress, not you and me. Just a guess.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is an independent, non-profit institute established by Congress and not under the control of the Executive Branch, so you might think that it would be able to pursue this lawsuit without interference. But consider what happened to the United States Institute of Peace, which was also an independent, non-profit institute established by Congress and not under the control of the Executive Branch: Trump (via DOGE) dismissed its leadership, fired its staff, and forcibly seized control of its headquarters and website; as of this month it has been renamed the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. Unless the courts immediately dismiss the Trust’s lawsuit, I think that in the near future it will be voluntarily withdrawn by a freshly rebranded Donald J. Trump Trust for Historic Preservation.
I once read a book about a couple of young men who travelled the US making corrections to grammar/punctuation/spelling on signage. Their journey ended at the Grand Canyon, after they were charged with federal offenses for correcting the punctuation on some signs in the park. I woulda thought it pretty basic - and universally agreed upon, that no individual has the authority to simply tear down a federal building…
