A judge asked a DOJ lawyer whether the government could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty unchallenged if it moved fast, and he agreed it could

The Justice Department argued in court that President Donald Trump has the authority to tear down the Statue of Liberty without legal interference, as long as the demolition happens quickly enough. According to The Daily Beast, this claim arose during a two-hour hearing before a federal appeals court on Friday. Government lawyers were defending a $400 million ballroom project that has become the subject of an ongoing legal battle.

Yaakov Roth, an attorney for the Justice Department Civil Division, faced tough questioning from Judge Patricia Millett during the hearing. The discussion focused on the demolition of the 123-year-old East Wing of a federal building, which was torn down in October to make room for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom. 

Judge Millett posed a hypothetical scenario to test the outer limits of the government’s position on executive power and who has the right to challenge it in court. “If the government decides very quickly and bulldozes the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast, nothing can be done?” Judge Millett asked. Roth responded plainly: “I think that’s right, yes.”

The government’s position on legal standing and historic structures

Judge Millett also asked whether a descendant of an enslaved person who helped build the White House would have legal standing to object if that building were demolished. Roth maintained that once a structure is gone, the window for a legal challenge effectively closes. When pressed further on whether moving fast enough prevents anyone from having standing to challenge the government, Roth replied, “So I do think that that is correct.”

The hearing was held before a three-judge panel that included Judge Millett, Judge Bradley Garcia, and Judge Neomi Rao. The panel is reviewing a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is seeking to stop the ballroom construction. 

A separate legal dispute has also emerged over a lawsuit against the Trump-run Kennedy Center, which allegedly accepted a $2 million donation from a man accused of falsely claiming to be a CIA operative. A federal appeals court had previously placed a temporary hold on a lower court order that had halted construction.

The legal conflict is still active, and no final ruling has been issued by the appeals court panel as of the date of the hearing. The DOJ has also drawn attention in recent months for using aggressive legal tactics in immigration courts, pushing judges to speed up hearings and issue more deportation orders.

Roth held firm throughout the arguments, insisting that the courts are not the right place to stop the president’s construction plans. When Judge Millett asked whether the government could proceed even in the face of complete lawlessness, Roth stated, “That is our position.” Roth also clarified his view on where the limits of opposition lie, saying, “This is really something that can’t be stopped in courts. It can only be stopped by Congress.”