National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States · ¶19
Of course, the district court’s injunction does not completely preclude above-ground construction and might be read to afford the government sufficient leeway to revise its construction plans and install some form of protective cover over the below-ground military installation. See id., at 232a–233a (permitting above-ground construction “strictly necessary” for security purposes); see also post, at 6, n.* (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). But none of that calls into question the government’s declarations attesting that constructing something approximating the height and mass of the intended above-ground ballroom is “crucial” to the security of the below-ground military installation, App. to Application 247a; that every day during which construction is delayed impairs the Secret Service’s “protective operations,” id., at 229a, 428a–429a; that the contemplated ballroom would enhance security…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.