The US Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to preservationists, ruling that construction on a $400m (£297m) ballroom at the White House can proceed with a 5-4 majority.

The high court's decision comes after President Donald Trump's administration filed an emergency request to block lower court rulings that would have halted the project. The justices granted this request, effectively allowing the construction of the 90,000 sq ft ballroom to move forward.

Read More: They fell in love - then had to check they weren't brother and sister

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with three liberal justices in dissent, arguing that "construction is likely unlawful" due to Congress' lack of approval for the project. He warned that the ruling "today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers."

The National Trust for Historic Preservation had filed the legal challenge, citing concerns over the president's unilateral authority to proceed with construction. The group argued that demolition and redesign of the White House without congressional approval would irreparably harm a historical landmark.

Trump hailed the ruling as a victory, stating he was "pleased" the lawsuit had failed to halt construction. He described the ballroom as one of the "Greatest ever constructed in Washington, DC," emphasizing its importance for events and security.

Also Read: WhatsApp Group Uncovers € Billions in Criminal Cash Flows, Fuels Extremist Funding

The president's plans for the White House include not only the ballroom but also renovations to other historic sites, such as the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and a proposed "Arc de Trump" larger than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The National Trust for Historic Preservation expressed disappointment with the court's decision, welcoming instead the strong dissent from Chief Justice Roberts.

The group noted that each President is a temporary steward of the People's House and does not have unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without congressional approval. Hoagland, who visits the neighbourhood once a month, had argued she would suffer both professional and personal injuries if the proposed ballroom were constructed.