Here's a classic Washington situation: a federal agency gives a project the green light, while a federal judge has put up a big red stop sign. The project in question is President Donald Trump's controversial $400 million White House ballroom, and the latest twist involves some bureaucratic maneuvering around a court order.

The National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees planning in the capital, voted 8-1 on Thursday to approve the ballroom project. This is the same project that a federal judge, Richard Leon, recently ordered to stop unless Congress approves it. So how does a vote happen while a court order is in effect? The commission's spokesperson, Stephen Staudigl, had an answer ready: the judge's ruling applies to construction activities, not the planning process. So they voted on the plan.

It's the kind of procedural distinction that keeps lawyers employed. The 12-member commission, which includes three of Trump's appointees, was originally supposed to vote back in March. They delayed until now because they got an overwhelming number of public comments to review—apparently people have opinions about a 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House. Before the vote, the commission looked at some design changes influenced by feedback, though no official reason for the tweaks was given.

Trump, unsurprisingly, was pleased. He took to Truth Social to thank the NCPC for "overwhelmingly approving" the project and highlighted support from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). He called it "an extraordinarily difficult vote."

But here's the catch: that court order isn't going away. Judge Leon's ruling was a significant setback for one of Trump's signature plans to remake parts of Washington. The judge gave the administration 14 days to appeal but did allow work related to White House security to continue in the meantime. From the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump vowed to do just that, arguing the judge was "wrong" to require a congressional thumbs-up because, he says, private donors—not taxpayers—are footing the bill for this $400 million addition.

So what we have is a planning commission saying "yes" on paper, and a judge saying "not unless Congress says so" in reality. That legal dispute could seriously slow down, or even stop, what would be the most significant structural change to the White House in over 70 years.

And in a bit of historical trivia that adds another layer, it turns out this isn't a brand-new idea for Trump. According to ex-senior White House advisor David Axelrod, Trump had offered to build a ballroom at the White House back in 2010, during former President Barack Obama's tenure. The offer wasn't taken up then, but the idea clearly stuck around.

For now, the project has a key approval in hand and a major legal challenge in front of it. The next move is likely Trump's appeal, setting up another chapter in the ongoing tussle between this administration and preservationists over the future of America's most famous address.