President Donald Trump could get away with bulldozing the Statue of Liberty on a whim if he wanted to, his lawyers argued in court as the legal fight over the White House ballroom continued. Attorney Yaakov Roth argued that no court could stop the destruction of one of America's most recognizable landmarks if the Trump Administration moved quickly enough. 'If the government decided to move very quickly to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty... [If] the government moved too fast, nothing can be done?' US Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett said in a hypothetical argument. 'I think that's right, yes,' Roth said, causing gasps to be heard in the courtroom, ABC News reported. The hypothetical argument on Friday came as the government is trying to reverse US District Judge Richard Leon's April 16 decision that halted the $400 million White House ballroom project, despite the construction already being underway. Lawyers representing the federal government argued a court could not stop construction of the ballroom because it was already being built and because of the sensitive security concerns they say the structure is meant to address.Roth said only Congress could halt the project. The administration has been asking the court to allow it to press on with the ballroom without congressional approval. President Donald Trump could tear down one of America's most iconic landmarks if he moved quick enough, his lawyer argued in court In a hypothetical argument, his lawyer, Yaakov Roth argued that no court could stop the destruction of the Statue of Liberty if the demolition was already underway Leon, who was nominated to the bench by former President George W Bush, allowed for construction to continue the below-ground work on a bunker and other 'national security facilities' at the site.The hearing centered on who has standing to challenge government steps once they have already been taken and whether that standing overrides national security.In the hypothetical, it was also said the descendants of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and the enslaved people who built the White House would not have legal standing to oppose the move after the fact.Millett, nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, asked Roth when the construction on the ballroom was a 'fait accompli?''Was it when you started doing the underground work, which is now totally completely integral and connected and inseparable from a massive ballroom on top?' she asked. 'When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?'Roth replied: 'I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on Day One.'The exchange was one of many during the two-hour hearing before the three-judge panel in DC. The hearing concluded without a decision by the judges.The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to challenge the project in December, a week after the White House finished demolishing the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that Trump said would fit 999 people. The argument came as the government is trying to reverse US District Judge Richard Leon April 16 decision that halted the $400 million White House ballroom project Lawyers representing the federal government argued a court could not stop construction of the ballroom because it was already being built and was fixing security concerns The below-ground work is still allowed to be constructed, but the above-ground work still remains stalled It is hard to determine how the judges might rule. While there were numerous questions for Roth over the administration's authority and changing explanations of how it is moving forward, plaintiff attorney Tad Heuer also faced numerous questions.The judges pressed Heuer on standing in the case and on how basic aesthetic questions can override the national security concerns.'We have never opposed the underground construction of the bunker, which is where the government, until recently, has said the national security concerns lay,' Heuer said. He said construction should be halted until Congress weighs in.'Congress can allow ballrooms to be built – it's its property,' Heuer said.Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones, ballistic missiles and biohazards.'These upgrades, alterations, and improvements are essential to protecting the president, his family, and his staff, as well as the White House itself, and the entire project flows from them,' they wrote in a court filing.Sign up HERE for our weekly DC Insider newsletter - your guide to what's rocking Washington, rattling the White House and setting tongues wagging on Capitol Hill