Main: Memorial Circle, the site where President Donald Trump has proposed a ceremonial arch marking the United States’ 250th anniversary, is pictured with the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Lincoln Memorial from the Washington Monument on Thursday, July 9, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson). Left inset: U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). Right inset: President Donald Trump addresses Republican lawmakers in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A day after a judge again directed the Justice Department to notify her about major developments, the Trump administration accused her of dragging out the case and urged her to “just issue a decision” on the president’s proposed “Great Triumphal Arch.”
Vietnam War veterans have been at the forefront of opposition to the planned “top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch” at Memorial Circle. Trump has described the project as a facility that would “house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers” across from Arlington National Cemetery.
The Commonwealth of Virginia and Washington, D.C., have now joined the legal challenge. The two jurisdictions recently asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for a temporary restraining order as the Nov. 5 deadline approaches.
In a motion filed on Halloween, the newly added plaintiffs said they plan to “prevent construction” of the 250-foot monument, arguing that the project “violates at least five federal statutes.”
“Defendants have made clear that they will construct their Arch anyway,” the filing stated, adding that the administration appeared prepared to move faster than the court by beginning work as early as Nov. 5, 2026 — “the very day” the National Capital Planning Commission could approve the project.
The previous day, Chutkan heard arguments from lawyers representing veterans Michael Lemmon, Shaun Byrnes and Jon Gundersen, along with architectural historian Calder Loth, during a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
According to reports, the judge questioned the administration’s rationale, asking whether the arch was somehow intended to deter assassination attempts against the president. She also noted that the structure was not expected to be completed for another three years.
On Monday, Chutkan issued an order requiring the government to provide advance notice, apparently giving the court an opportunity to intervene before the National Capital Planning Commission considers the project on Nov. 5.
“Defendants shall provide notice within one hour of any decision by the National Capital Planning Commission, any decision by the National Park Service, and any decision by the Department of the Interior regarding an arch on Memorial Circle,” the order said. “Defendants shall also provide notice within thirty minutes of any activity related to or in preparation for the construction of an arch on Memorial Circle. Defendants are reminded that any construction or demolition in preparation for construction before the National Park Service issues final agency action authorizing construction or without 14 days’ notice would be a violation of the court’s previous orders.”
MUST READ: NTSB Finds No Evidence Florida Jet Crash That Killed 9 Was Linked to Mar-a-Lago
In its response opposing the requested TRO, the DOJ sharply criticized what it called the Obama-appointed judge’s “problematic notice injunctions.” The department also cited a concurrence written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing that Chutkan’s approach could create “needless head-on confrontations between district judges and the Chief Executive.”
In a later filing, the government asked Chutkan to clarify the order and extend the notice deadline from the current time limits to 24 hours.
The DOJ also argued that Congress had “undeniably authorized” Trump’s arch more than a century ago, when lawmakers approved plans for “166-foot-tall columns surmounted by statues” that were never constructed.
“The proposed arch fulfills that Congressional vision and completes a significant gap on Columbia Island long lamented by the Capital’s planners,” the department wrote. “If the Court disagrees with Defendants, however, then it should just issue a decision on any of the fully briefed dispositive motions pending before it.” The filing added that continued delays would lead to more emergency motions.
Pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision allowing construction of Trump’s ballroom to continue, the DOJ urged Chutkan to reject the TRO. The government argued that the plaintiffs merely “disagree with the design of the arch, find it distasteful, and do not want to see it,” and therefore lack legal standing.
The government also dismissed Washington, D.C.’s concerns that the project could affect endangered bat species, including the northern long-eared bat and the tricolored bat, calling those arguments “nonsense.”
“Similarly, the District argues that the Arch project will require it to ‘expend additional funds to study the impacts of the Arch’ on bats. Nonsense. The arch is being constructed in a traffic circle, not a forest or a bat cave,” the filing stated.
The lawsuit filed by Washington, D.C., and Virginia nevertheless argues that the structure could “interfere with the bats as they forage in or traverse Memorial Circle.”
The post ‘Just issue a decision’: DOJ mocks ‘nonsense’ concerns over Trump arch’s potential impact on bats and criticizes judge’s ‘problematic’ injunctions first appeared on Law & Crime.
