By Fatma Younis
Hearings in two lawsuits challenging Trump administration-backed projects unfolded in a single federal courthouse on Friday, highlighting the breadth of President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape parts of the District of Columbia as midterm elections approach. The two sites are barely three miles apart.
Golf Course Plan Sparks Judicial Scrutiny
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes pressed Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. over the administration’s sudden push to close and reconfigure the historic East Potomac Golf Links near the National Mall into a championship-level facility designed by Tom Fazio. The judge’s scrutiny followed a series of Truth Social posts by Trump beginning Oct. 18 that announced construction would start Nov. 15 and the park would close for 15 months. Justice Department officials initially could not confirm the plans under questioning, prompting Reyes to ask whom she should trust. A Wednesday night filing confirmed the National Park Service would submit a rendering to the National Capital Planning Commission on Friday. During the hearing, Woodward inadvertently mentioned tree cutting as part of the closure preparation, though the cutting had occurred earlier in the month. Reyes said she intends to appoint a special master to investigate the administration’s statements to the court.
Memorial Arch Construction Halt Sought
Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan heard a motion to temporarily block construction of a 250-foot memorial arch on Memorial Circle, which would stand 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty from base to torch. A group of veterans and an architectural historian sued, arguing Congress must authorize the project. The plaintiffs warned that allowing construction to begin as early as Nov. 5 would render the arch a fait accompli before a final court ruling.
Executive Authority Tested
Legal experts say the cases test the limits of presidential power. Georgetown University law professor David Super noted that past administrations generally sought to act within legal boundaries, but the current approach risks long-term damage if courts are perceived as unable to stop clearly illegal actions.
