Courts Face Clash Over Trump's Capital Projects as Nov. 5 Deadline Looms

Federal judges in Washington are weighing two separate legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s plans to reshape the District of Columbia, with hearings held in the same courthouse on Friday.

The disputes center on a proposed closure of a historic public golf course near the National Mall and the construction of a 250-foot memorial arch in Memorial Circle. The two sites are located less than three miles apart.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes presided over the golf course case, questioning Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. about the timeline for turning East Potomac Golf Links into a world-class facility. Reyes ordered the hearing after a series of Truth Social posts by the president indicated that construction would begin on Nov. 15.

The administration stated in a Wednesday night filing that the National Park Service would submit a design by Tom Fazio to the National Capital Planning Commission for review on Oct. 30. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months during the renovation.

During the hearing, Reyes questioned the consistency of the administration’s statements. She noted that officials from the Interior Department, Justice, and National Park Service had previously struggled to confirm the existence of the plans. When Woodward mentioned tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure, Reyes interrupted, noting that the tree cutting had occurred earlier in the month.

Reyes stated her intention to appoint a special master to investigate the administration’s statements to the court. She also read the code of conduct to government attorneys regarding the presentation of accurate information during hearings.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was scheduled to hear a motion regarding the memorial arch. The arch would stand 75 meters tall, making it 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty from base to torch tip. Construction on the arch is slated to begin as early as Nov. 5.

Plaintiffs in the arch case, including a group of veterans and an architectural historian, argued that Congress must endorse the project. They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the administration from rendering the project a fait accompli before a final determination is made.

Legal experts view these cases as tests of presidential power. David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said that while past administrations pursued theories that were sometimes legally sound, the current approach suggests a belief that federal courts cannot stop the executive branch.

Super argued that acting on projects that are indisputably illegal because the courts are perceived as unable to intervene will do long-term damage to the country. The next scheduled steps involve the Nov. 5 potential start of arch construction and the Nov. 15 planned closure of the golf course.