After a panel of federal judges ordered a halt to construction on the White House ballroom, President Donald Trump said he will immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a Truth Social post Friday, Trump decried the 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as «horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful.»

In a subsequent Truth Social post Friday, Trump also blasted the two-judge majority, noting one judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama and the other by former President Joe Biden. He took particular issue with the panel’s statement that «Each President is a temporary tenant…of the White House,» writing that presidents «are not tenants» but are elected by the American people and have the authority to «fix, renovate, secure, protect, and beautify the White House grounds.»

TRUMP WARNS JUDGE AGAINST SACRIFICING NATIONAL SECURITY BY BLOCKING WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM, DRONE BASE

In his initial response to the decision earlier on Friday, Trump wrote: «The Circuit Court’s decision, which is totally wrong on the vital subject of STANDING, of which the plaintiff has none, severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House — including all future Presidents of the United States, and their families, as well as the lives of all those visiting, such as Heads of State and other Dignitaries, and all Americans who wish to visit the historic, beautiful Executive Mansion.» 

He also accused the court of refusing to acknowledge that the ballroom, which he said is being built ahead of schedule and under budget, «is a Gift from President Trump and Great Patriots of the United States of America.»

«There will be no expense to the American Taxpayer. This unjust decision must be overturned by the Supreme Court in its entirety,» Trump wrote.

The appeals court on Friday upheld a lower-court decision that paused above-ground construction of the proposed 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom project, which replaced the demolished East Wing.

The earlier ruling allowed work to continue on underground national security facilities and certain safety and security measures, a decision the higher court also upheld.

REPUBLICANS EYE PICKING UP $400M TAB FOR TRUMP’S BALLROOM AS SOME DEMS OPEN TO ‘DISCUSS’ IDEA

President Donald Trump holds a design rendering of a proposed $400 million presidential ballroom at the White House. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg, File)

The appeals court said in its 136-page ruling that the decision to build a «massive ballroom» lies with Congress, not with the executive branch.

Trump argued the ruling itself «is a National Security Threat at the highest level» because much of the project has already been completed and paid for, calling the decision a «National Disgrace.»

Judges Patricia Millett and Brad Garcia wrote the majority opinion, remarking that there is no precedent for what Trump has done.

«We are aware of no instance in American history in which a President unilaterally and using privately collected funds demolished substantial portions of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for. Until now,» they wrote.

President Trump announced he is appealing Friday’s decision to the Supreme Court. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images, File)

The judges said their ruling does not prevent the president from building the ballroom if it is authorized by Congress in the future.

As Trump pointed out in his social media post, the ruling was stayed for 14 days to allow the defendants to seek a Supreme Court review.

It is not immediately clear if the Supreme Court will take up this case.

Dos argentinos, dos aeropuertos de Estados Unidos y una coincidencia: ambos fueron detenidos cuando estaban por tomar vuelos internos y atravesaban procesos migratorios que todavía no habían sido resueltos. Los casos de Iliana Noelí Lick y Matías Pourrain ponen el foco sobre una estrategia que el gobierno de Donald Trump profundizó para localizar a extranjeros a partir de la información de los pasajeros que circulan por las terminales aéreas.

El mecanismo se apoya en una mayor cooperación entre la Administración de Seguridad en el Transporte (TSA), encargada de los controles de seguridad en los aeropuertos, y el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE).

Un acuerdo firmado entre ambas agencias en mayo de 2025 amplió el intercambio de información sobre pasajeros. Bajo la administración Trump, esos datos comenzaron a ser utilizados con mayor intensidad para identificar a personas que podrían encontrarse en una situación migratoria irregular o ser consideradas deportables, incluso cuando no tienen antecedentes penales.

De esta manera, los aeropuertos se convirtieron en puntos estratégicos para los agentes migratorios. La TSA dispone de información anticipada de quienes tienen previsto abordar un avión y esos datos pueden ser contrastados con las bases utilizadas por las autoridades de inmigración.

El alcance de esa cooperación marca una diferencia respecto de prácticas anteriores, cuando el intercambio estaba principalmente relacionado con investigaciones sobre delitos federales o cuestiones vinculadas con la seguridad. Ahora también puede derivar en procedimientos por infracciones exclusivamente migratorias.

Dos argentinos detenidos antes de tomar un avión

Uno de los casos es el de Iliana Noelí Lick, una argentina de 30 años que trabajaba como niñera y vivía en Filadelfia. Fue detenida el 11 de julio en el aeropuerto de esa ciudad cuando se preparaba para viajar a Kansas City para ver un partido de la Selección argentina durante el Mundial.

Según su entorno, Lick había ingresado legalmente a Estados Unidos y tenía pendiente una solicitud migratoria para permanecer en el país. Su novio, Steven Melchiorre, aseguró que nunca había cometido delitos ni faltado a una audiencia.

La argentina trabajaba para dos familias y cuidaba a tres chicos menores de cinco años. Tras su detención, sus allegados iniciaron una campaña para afrontar los gastos de abogados especializados en inmigración y otros costos derivados del proceso. Finalmente, la Justicia le concedió la liberación tras el pago de una fianza de US$10.000.

Casi un mes después apareció un segundo caso con características similares.

Matías Pourrain, futbolista argentino del Miami United FC, fue detenido cuando se disponía a abordar un avión en Miami junto con sus compañeros. El equipo debía viajar a Los Ángeles para disputar una competencia nacional después de consagrarse campeón del Sudeste.

Su hermano contó a TN que Pourrain pasó los controles y estaba cerca de subir al avión cuando fue apartado para responder algunas preguntas. Le dijeron que el procedimiento demoraría alrededor de diez minutos, pero no regresó con el resto del plantel.

La familia sostiene que el jugador se encontraba en un proceso de asilo, tenía número de Social Security y permiso de trabajo, pero todavía esperaba una entrevista vinculada con su trámite migratorio.

Horas después pudo comunicarse durante apenas unos segundos con su pareja. Según relató su hermano, alcanzó a decirle que creía encontrarse en un centro del ICE en Miramar, Florida, mientras esperaba conocer dónde continuaría detenido.

Los dos episodios ocurren mientras el ICE intensifica sus procedimientos en terminales aéreas. Esto no significa que cualquier extranjero que tome un avión vaya a ser detenido ni que tener un trámite migratorio pendiente implique automáticamente una orden de arresto. Cada situación depende del estatus particular de la persona y de las decisiones adoptadas por las autoridades migratorias.

Sin embargo, los casos registrados durante los últimos meses muestran que los aeropuertos adquirieron un nuevo peso dentro de la política migratoria de la administración Trump.

The Justice Department is accusing Duke University School of Law of favoring Black and Hispanic applicants over White and Asian applicants with the same academic records in its admissions process, which the Trump administration argues the law school used to meet its «diversity goals.»

«Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions,» Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) that it was unconstitutional for colleges and higher education institutions to consider a student’s race in their admissions processes. The decision prompted the Trump administration to open investigations into alleged race-based discrimination at dozens of colleges and universities.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ZEROES IN ON UCLA FOR ALLEGED ILLEGAL DEI ADMISSIONS AS ELITE SCHOOL CRACKDOWN EXPANDS

The Civil Rights Division, which began investigating Duke Law in April 2025, found that Black applicants who applied in 2025 had roughly 3.5 times the chance of admission as Asian applicants with the same academic credentials, according to a Justice Department letter sent to Duke Law. Investigators found that the median LSAT score for accepted Black applicants was lower than the median score for rejected Asian and White applicants.

«This consistent difference in the test scores between students of different racial groups is substantial and cannot be explained by a coincidence,» the letter stated. «The magnitude and durability of these preferences across multiple cycles (including post-SFFA) confirm intentional discrimination.»

The Trump administration’s review of internal communications found that the law school began preparing for the Supreme Court’s SFFA ruling so its admissions process could continue «to meet the Law School’s goals for a broadly diverse student body.»

For instance, Duke Law’s post-SFFA guidance for admissions allowed officials to «consider applicants’ discussion of how race affected their life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.» Applicants provided these discussions in short-answer essays, where admissions officials could then «tag» the responses to provide context for weaker academic records when evaluating applicants.

COAST GUARD ENDING RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS FOR OFFICER COMMISSIONING PROGRAM UNDER TRUMP DEI CRACKDOWN

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon arrives for a news conference at the Justice Department on September 29, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Duke Law states that it values «students with a wide range of experiences, backgrounds, and interests that may not be directly related to their legal ambitions,» encouraging applicants to «highlight different elements» of who they are.

«Using ‘diversity’ essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on race, and this Department is committed to eliminating it everywhere we find it, including in our nation’s law schools,» Dhillon said in a statement.

After SFFA, Duke Law admissions continued to release reports highlighting the school’s diversity and its efforts to achieve «race-neutral» admissions standards. In a May 2024 annual review, the associate dean of admissions highlighted the diversity of the incoming fall 2023 class, including the number of Latino, Black and Asian or Asian American students.

In the school’s 2025 Annual Review Memorandum, the admissions dean suggested that the law school can gauge the diversity of its student body by observing students on campus rather than compiling formal statistics.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

FILE – This Jan. 28, 2019 file photo shows the entrance to the main Duke University campus in Durham, N.C.  (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)

A Duke University spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the university is aware of the Justice Department’s allegations.

«The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division issued a letter of findings related to Duke Law’s admissions practices. We are reviewing the letter and its conclusions carefully. Duke is committed to complying with the law and will continue to do so in a manner that is consistent with our academic mission,» a Duke University spokesperson said.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Justice Department for additional comment.