Federal judges question Trump administration on DC golf course and memorial arch plans
Two lawsuits challenging major changes to the National Mall area reached the courthouse on Friday, testing the limits of presidential power just weeks before the midterms.
By Sofia Ramirez ·
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan presided over separate hearings on Friday in Washington, D.C., regarding two major infrastructure projects backed by the Trump administration. The cases focus on a historic public golf course near the National Mall and a proposed 250-foot memorial arch, both located within five kilometers of each other. These legal challenges arrive as the administration moves to reshape federal spaces along the Potomac River.
The golf course dispute centers on plans to shut down the East Potomac Golf Links for 15 months to transform it into a championship-level facility. President Donald Trump announced these intentions via a series of Truth Social posts starting October 18, stating that construction would begin November 15. He claimed the National Park Service would submit a rendering by architect Tom Fazio to the National Capital Planning Commission for review on Friday.
During the hearing, Judge Reyes questioned Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. about the timeline and the existence of the plans. Government officials from the Interior Department, Justice Department, and National Park Service initially struggled to confirm the details under questioning. The Justice Department filed a notice on Wednesday night confirming the plans were real, stating the rendering would be submitted on October 30.
Judge Reyes cited a code of conduct regarding the presentation of accurate information by government attorneys. She noted that tree cutting had already occurred earlier in the month, which Woodward initially linked to the upcoming closure. The judge responded by calling it a news flash and stated her intention to appoint a special master to investigate the administration’s statements made to the court.
Three courtrooms away, Judge Chutkan heard a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt construction on the memorial arch. The arch, which would stand 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty, is opposed by a group of veterans and an architectural historian. The plaintiffs argue that Congress must endorse the project before construction begins, which could start as early as November 5.
The plaintiffs argued that the public interest opposes allowing the defendants to proceed without judicial oversight. They requested the court block the start of construction to prevent the project from becoming a fait accompli before a final determination is made. The two cases are being viewed by legal observers as tests of the executive branch's authority to alter federal property.
David Super, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, noted that past administrations generally attempted to ensure their actions were legally sound. He suggested that the current approach, which assumes federal courts may not stop the administration, could cause long-term damage. He stated that the administration appears willing to take actions that are indisputably illegal if it believes the courts cannot intervene.
The next scheduled action for the golf course case involves the submission of the Fazio rendering to the National Capital Planning Commission on October 30. For the memorial arch case, the administration plans to begin construction as early as November 5 unless Judge Chutkan grants the preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs.
